Sv' 

ti. 


\ 


/ 


■ ■ 


) 


s3 


A 


Vi. 


/ 


1/ 


•i# 


N 


V 


'S 


■ V 


r 


4 


EUTHYMIDES  AND 
HIS  FELLOWS 

BY 

JOSEPH  CLARK  HOPPIN,  Ph.D.,  F.R.G.S. 


CAMBRIDGE 

HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
1917 


COPYRIGHT,  1917 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


THE  J.  PAUL  GETTY  CENTER 
LIBRARY 


TO 

E.  D.  H. 


r 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Getty  Research  Institute 


https://archive.org/details/euthymideshisfelOOhopp 


PREFACE 


AS  the  present  volume  goes  to  press  I am  keenly  conscious 
of  its  many  shortcomings.  For  most  of  these,  I may  say 
in  self-defence,  the  terrible  struggle  now  raging  in  Europe  is 
responsible,  since  owing  to  the  extreme  difficulty  of  com- 
munication with  the  Central  Powers  I have  been  obliged  to 
leave  many  points  unverified.  I can  only  hope,  however, 
that  most  of  them  are  not  very  vital. 

I have  received  so  many  kindnesses  from  so  many  hands 
that  I despair  of  my  ability  to  thank  in  adequate  fashion 
those  who  have  given  me  so  much  material  assistance  during 
the  course  of  my  work.  My  especial  thanks  are  due  to  Pro- 
fessor George  H.  Chase,  of  Harvard  University  who  has 
very  kindly  read  my  manuscript  and  given  me  a number  of 
excellent  suggestions : to  the  staff  of  the  American  Academy 
in  Rome  and  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts  (particularly 
Mr.  A.  W.  Van  Buren,  and  Mr.  C.  D.  Curtis  of  the  former, 
and  Dr.  L.  D.  Caskey  of  the  latter)  for  the  interest  and  help 
they  have  so  freely  given  me  during  my  work  amid  such 
peaceful  surroundings:  to  M.  Edmond  Pottier,  Conservateur 
of  the  Louvre  for  his  many  suggestions  and  assistance  in 
obtaining  for  me  the  excellent  drawing  of  the  Louvre  hydria 
(G  41)  by  Mme.  Buriat:  to  Professor  G.  E.  Rizzo  of  Turin 
for  his  gracious  resignation  to  me  of  the  publication  rights 
in  the  Turin  psykter:  and  to  Mr.  J.  D.  Beazley,  Fellow  of 
Christ  Church,  Oxford,  who  has  so  kindly  allowed  me  to 
use  the  material  in  his  forth-coming  publication  of  the  ^ Vases 
in  America.’ 

For  various  suggestions,  photographs,  etc.  I am  greatly 
indebted  to  Dr.  Robert  Zahn,  Director  of  the  Antiquarium 


VI 


PREFACE 


in  Berlin,  Dr.  Paul  Hermann,  Director  of  the  Albertinum  in 
Dresden,  Professor  Paul  Wolters,  of  Munich,  Dr.  Friedrich 
Hauser  of  Stuttgart,  Sir  Cecil  Smith,  Director  of  the  Victoria 
and  Albert  Museum  in  London,  Mr.  G.  F.  Hill  and  Mr. 
H.  B.  Walters  of  the  British  Museum  and  Dr.  Stephen  B. 
Luce,  Jr.,  of  the  University  Museum  in  Philadelphia.  I can- 
not express  too  strongly  my  appreciation  of  the  courtesy 
of  the  firm  of  Bruckmann  in  Munich  who  have  allowed  me 
to  reproduce  the  excellent  plates  of  Furtwangler  and  Reich- 
hold’s  memorable  work.  The  staff  of  the  Harvard  Univer- 
sity Press,  especially  Mr.  C.  Chester  Lane  and  Mrs.  Heller, 
will  be  sure  of  my  grateful  recollections  for  their  unfailing 
patience  and  good-nature  in  spite  of  my  many  exacting 
demands. 

And  lastly,  to  her  to  whom  this  book  is  dedicated  do  I 
wish  to  express  my  most  loving  thanks  for  her  unfailing 
sympathy,  encouragement,  and  intelligent  criticism. 

J.  C.  H. 

Boston,  Massachusetts, 

February,  1917. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 3 

Numerical  System 5 

Table  of  Ornaments 6 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  SIGNED  VASES  OF  EUTHYMIDES ir 

CHAPTER  HI 

THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 25 

Signature  and  Inscriptions  26 

Use  of  ko\6s  Names 30 

Relation  to  Other  Artists  of  the  Period 32 

Style  and  Technical  Details 40 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  VASES  ATTRIBUTED  TO  EUTHYMIDES 46 

CHAPTER  V 

PHINTIAS 93 

Attributed  Vases 114 

CHAPTER  VI 

HYPSIS 135 

Attributed  Vases 142 


Vlll 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  VII 

KLEOPHRADES  146 

The  Style  of  Kleophrades 150 

Attributed  Vases 152 


CHAPTER  VIII 

COMPOSITION,  SUBJECT-MATTER,  AND  LIST  OF  KAVO^ 


NAMES 165 

GENERAL  INDEX 177 

INDEX  OF  MUSEUMS 180 

INDEX  OF  NAMES 182 

INDEX  OF  PUBLICATIONS 185 


LIST  OF  PLATES 


I.  Munich  2307  (E  I) 

from  F.R.  i,  pi.  14. 

II.  Munich  2308  (E  II) 

F.R.  ii,  pi.  81. 

III.  Munich  2309  (E  III) 

« 

F.R.  i,  pi.  33. 

IV-V.  Turin  (E  IV) 

drawings  by  Baglione. 

VI.  Bonn  (E  V) 

(( 

A.Z.  1873,  pi.  9. 

VII.  Brit.  Mus.  E 254  (E  i) 

<( 

photographs. 

VIII.  Brit.  Mus.  E 255  (E  2) 

u 

photographs. 

IX.  Brit.  Mus.  E 256  (E3) 

u 

photographs. 

X-XI.  Details  of  Brit.  Mus. 

E 243-256  (E  1-3,  H i) 

u 

photographs. 

XII.  Wurzburg  300  (E  4) 

u 

F.R.  ii,  pi.  103. 

XIII-XIV.  Leyden  23.36  (E  5) 

u 

photographs. 

XV-XVI.  Louvre  G44 

u 

photographs  and  tracing  by 
Beazley. 

XVII-XIX.  Brit.  Mus.  E 767  (E  7) 

u 

photographs. 

XX-XXI.  Berlin  2180  (E8) 

(( 

A.Z.  1879,  pi.  4,  and  photO' 
graph. 

XXII.  Vienna  333  (E  n) 

u 

F.R.  ii,  pi.  72. 

XXIII.  Florence  3985  (E  12) 

u 

F.R.  ii,  fig.  44. 

XXIV.  Boston  00.335  (E  16) 

u 

photograph. 

XXV.  Munich  2590  (P  I) 

u 

F.R.  i,  pi.  32. 

XXVI.  CORNETO  (P  II) 

u 

F.R.  ii,  pi.  91. 

XXVII.  Brit.  Mus.  E 159  (P  IV) 

u 

J.H.S.  1891,  pi.  20. 

( ^Munich  2421  (P  i) 

u 

F.R.  ii,  d1.  71. 

' Brussels  R 227  (E  10) 

XIX-XXX.  Louvre  G 41  (P  3) 

a 

drawing  by  Mme.  Buriat. 

XXXI.  Louvre  G44  (P4) 

u 

F.R.  ii,  pi.  112. 

XXXII.  Boston  01.8019  (P  6) 

u 

photograph. 

XXXIII.  Boston  01.8019  (P  6) 

u 

Ant.  Denk.  ii,  pi.  20. 

XXXIV.  Leipzig  (P  7) 

u 

Arch.  Anz.  1896,  p.  184,  fig.  26. 

XXXV.  Munich  (4)  (H  I) 

u 

F.R.  ii,  pi.  82. 

XXXVI.  Rome,  Torlonia  Coll. 

(HII) 

u 

Ant.  Denk.  ii,  pi.  8. 

XXXVII.  Brit.  Mus.  E 253  (H  i) 

u 

photograph. 

X 


LIST  OF  PLATES 


XXXVIII.  Cab.  de  Med.  535  (KI)  from  Luynes,  Descrip.,  pi.  44. 
XXXIX-XL.  Rome,  Vatican  496  (K  i)  “ photographs. 

XLI.  Munich  2305  (K  2)  “ F.R.  i.  pi.  52. 

XLII.  CoRNETO  (K4)  “ Hartwig,  fig.  56. 

XLIII.  Louvre  G 48  (K  5)  “ Louvre  Album,  ii,  pis.  93-94. 

XLIV.  Cab.  de  Med.  536  (K  6)  “ J.H.S.  1889,  pi.  2. 

XLV-XLVIII.  Composition  drawing  of  all  the  vases  described  in 

THIS  VOLUME. 

The  photographs  of  Brit.  Mus.  E 254-256  have  been  retouched  by  the 
late  F.  Anderson.  Those  of  Brit.  Mus.  E 253  and  E 767,  as  well  as  the  detail 
heads,  are  by  Fleming,  retouched  by  Mr.  Waterhouse. 


FIG. 


ILLUSTRATIONS  IN  THE  TEXT 


1 . Graffito  of  E I 

2.  Graffito  of  E III 

3.  Turin  psykter  (EIV) 

4.  Turin  psykter  detail 

5.  Bocchi  plate  (E  VI) 

6.  Reverse  of  E 6 

7.  Graffito  OF  E 6 

8.  Detail  of  E 7 

9.  Dresden  kalpis  (E  9) 

10.  Graffito  OF  E 1 1 

11.  Athens  kylix  CC  1157  (E  13) 

12.  Berlin  2304  (E  14) 

13.  Leipzig  kylix  (E  i 5) 

14.  Boston  fragment  (E  17) 

15.  Louvre  fragment  (E  18) 

16.  Acropolis  pinax  (E  19) 

17.  Baltimore  kylix  (PHI) 

18.  Shoulder  of  P IV 

19.  Graffito  of  P IV 

20.  Leipzig  kylix  (P  V) 

21.  Eleusis  lekythos  (P  VI) 

22.  Palmette  of  P I 

23.  Graffito  of  P i 

\ Munich  2422  (P  2) 

25-  ^ 

26.  Graffito  of  P 2 

27.  Graffito  OF  P 3 

28.  Palmette  of  P 4 

29.  Graffito  of  P 6 

30.  Krater  in  Petrograd  (P  8) 

3 1 . Villa  Giulia  fragment  (P  9) 

32.  Graffito  of  H I 

33.  Detail  of  H i 

34.  Detail  of  K I 

35.  Detail  OF  K 2 

36.  Detail  OF  K 6 


from  F.R.  i,  p.  66. 

“ F.R.  i,  p.  181. 

“ photograph. 

“ photograph.  - 
“ Schone,  Mus.  Bocchi  pi.  4,  2. 

“ tracing  by  Beazley. 

“ Louvre  Album,  ii,  p.  144. 

“ photograph. 

“ photograph. 

F.R.  ii,  p.  80,  fig.  43. 

Hartwig,  pi.  17,  3. 

Hartwig,  pi.  18,  2. 

Hartwig,  pi.  18,  i. 
photograph, 
tracing  by  Beazley. 

Ephem.  Arch.  1887,  pi.  6. 

Hartwig,  pi.  17,  i. 

J.H.S.  1891,  pi.  21. 

J.H.S.  1891,  pi.  368. 

Hartwig,  pi.  17,  2. 

Ephem.  Arch.  1885,  pi.  9,  No.  10. 
F.R.  ii,  p.  64,  fig.  26. 

F.R.  ii,  p.  66,  fig.  29. 

F.R.  ii,  p.  68,  figs.  30-31. 

F.R.  ii,  p.  70,  fig.  32. 

Louvre  Album  ii,  p.  143. 

F.R.  ii,  p.  276,  fig.  96. 
drawing. 

Arch.  Anz.  1912,  p.  104,  fig.  2-3. 
Mon.  Ant.  Line.  1913,  p.  285,  fig.  4. 
F.R.  ii,  p.  113,  fig.  27. 
photograph. 

Hartwig,  pi.  37,  i. 

F.R.  i,  p.  265. 

Hartwig,  pi.  37,  3. 


I 


'■«t  •> 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


PUBLICATIONS 

A.  J.  A American  Journal  of  Archaeology. 

Ann.  d.  Inst Annali  deir  Instituto  di  Correspondenza 

Archaeologico. 

Ant.  Denk Antike  Denkmaler. 

Arch.  Anz Archaeologischer  Anzeiger  (supplement  to  the 

Jahrbuch). 

Arch.  Epig.  Mitt.  a.  Oester.  Archaeologische-EpigraphischeMittheilungen 

aus  Oesterreich-Ungarn. 

A.  Z Archaeologische  Zeitung. 

Athen.  Mitt Athenische  Mittheilungen. 

Ber.  d.  Sachs.  Ges.  d.  Wiss.  Berichte  der  Sachsischen  Gesellschaft  der 

Wissenschaften. 

B.  P.  W Berliner  Philologischer  Wochenschrift. 

B.  C.  H Bulletin  de  Correspondance  Hellenique. 

Bull.  d.  Inst Bulletino  dell’  Instituto. 

Class.  Rev Classical  Review. 

C.  R Comptes-rendus  de  la  Commission  Imperiale 

Archeologique. 

Ephem.  Arch Ephemeris  Archaeologike. 

Gaz.  Arch Gazette  Archeologique. 

Thb Jahrbuch  des  Kaiserlich  Deutschen  Arch- 

aeologischen  Instituts. 

Jahresheft Jahreshefte  des  Oesterreichen  Archaeolog- 

ischen  Instituts. 

J.  H.  S Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies. 

Mon.  Ant.  Line Monumenti  Antichi  della  Reale  Accademia 

dei  Lincei. 

Mon.  d.  Inst Monumenti  Inediti  dell’  Instituto. 

Mon.  Piot Monuments  et  Memoires:  Fondation  Eugene 

Piot. 

Mus.  Ital Museo  Italiano  di  Antichita  Classica. 

Rev.  Arch Revue  Archeologique. 

Rhein.  Mus Rheinisches  Museum. 

Rom.  Mitt Romische  Mittheilungen. 

Sitzber.  Bayer.  Akad Sitzungsberichte  der  Bayerischen  Akademie. 


XIV 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


CATALOGUES 

Reference  to  a museum  followed  by  the  word  “ Cat.”  indicates  the  follow- 
ing Catalogues: 

Athens.  Catalogue  des  vases  peints  du  Musee  Nationale  d’Athenes.  By 
M.  Collignon  and  L.  Couve. 

Berlin.  Beschreibung  der  Vasensammlung  des  Antiquarium  in  Berlin. 
By  Adolf  Furtwangler. 

Leyden.  Catalogus  van  het  Rijksmuseum  van  Oudheden  te  Leyden.  By 
J.  H.  Holwerda. 

London:  British  Museum.  Catalogue  of  the  Vases  in  the  British  Museum, 
vol.  hi.  By  (Sir)  Cecil  Smith. 

Madrid.  Vases  Grecs  et  Italo-Grecs  du  Musee  Archeologique  de  Madrid. 
By  G.  Leroux. 

Munich.  Beschreibung  der  Vasensammlung  Konig  Ludwig’s  in  der  Pina- 
kothek  zu  Miinchen.  By  Otto  Jahn. 

Paris:  Louvre.  Catalogue  des  vases  antiques  de  terre  cuite,  vol.  hi.  By 
Edmond  Pottier.  Album:  Vases  antiques  du  Louvre,  vol.  ii.  Same 
author. 

Paris:  Cabinet  des  Medailles  (Bibliotheque  Nationale).  Catalogue  des 
vases  peints  de  la  Bibliotheque  Nationale.  By  A.  De  Ridder. 

Petrograd.  Die  Vasensammlung  der  Kaiserlichen  Ermitage.  By  L. 
Stephani. 

Vienna.  Die  Sammlung  antiken  Vasen  und  Terracotten  im  K.  K.  Oester- 
reich.  Museum.  By  Karl  Masner. 

Wurzburg.  Verzeichniss  der  antiken  Sammlungen  der  Universitat  Wiirz- 
burg.  By  L.  Urlichs. 

WORKS  OF  GENERAL  REFERENCE 


Amelung,  Fiihrer Fiihrer  durch  die  Antiken  in  Florenz. 

Baumeister Denkmaler  des  klassischen  Alterthums. 

Benndorf,  G.  S.  V Griechische  und  Sicilische  Vasenbilder.  By  Otto 

Benndorf. 

Brunn,  K.  G Geschichte  der  griechischen  Kiinstler.  By  Hein- 

rich Brunn. 

Buschor Griechische  Vasenmalerei.  By  E.  Buschor. 

Cat.  etr Catalogo  di  scelte  antichita  etrusche  trovati  negli 

scavi  del  Principe  del  Canino,  1828-29.  Vit- 
erbo 1829. 

Chase Shield  Devices  of  the  Greeks.  By  G.  H.  Chase, 

(Harvard  Studies  in  Classical  Philology,  vol. 
xih). 


TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


XV 


C.  I.  G Corpus  Inscriptionum  Graecarum. 

Corey De  Amazonum  antiquissimis  figuris.  By  A. 

Corey.  Berlin,  1891. 

Daremberg-Saglio Dictionnaire  des  antiquites  grecques  et  romaines. 

Now  carried  on  by  E.  Saglio  and  E.  Pottier. 

De  Witte,  Descrip Description  d’une  collection  de  vases  peints  et 

bronzes  antiques,  provenant  des  fouilles  de 
I’Etrurie.  By  J.  De  Witte.  Paris,  1837. 

El.  Cer Elite  des  monuments  ceramographiques.  By  Ch. 

Lenormant  and  J.  De  Witte. 

F.  R Die  griechische  Vasenmalerei.  By  A.  Furtwang- 

ler  and  K.  Reichhold. 

Genick Griechische  Keramik.  By  A.  Genick. 

Gerhard: 

Aus.  Vas Auserlesene  griechische  Vasenbilder.  By  E. 

Gerhard. 

Rapp.  Vole Rapporto  intorni  i vasi  Volcenti  (vol.  hi  of  the 

Ann.  d.  Inst.). 

T.  G Trinkschalen  und  Gefasse  des  Kon.  Mus.  zu 

Berlin  und  anderer  Sammlungen. 

Hackl Merkantile  Inschriften  auf  Attischen  Vasen.  By 

R.  Hackl  (in  Miinchener  Archaeologischer 
Studien,  dedicated  to  A.  Furtwangler). 

Hartwig Die  griechische  Meisterschalen.  By  P.  Hartwig. 

Helbig-Reisch Fiihrer  durch  die  offentlichen  Sammlungen  klas- 

sischer  Alterthiimer  in  Rom.  3d  ed.  By 
Wolfgang  Helbig  in  cooperation  with  E.  Reisch 
and  W.  Amelung. 

Jahn: 

Arch.  Aufs Archaeologische  Aufsatze.  By  Otto  Jahn. 

Dichter  auf  Vasen . . Ueber  Darstellungen  griechischer  Dichter  auf 
Vasenbildern. 

Klein: Die  griechischen  Vasen  mit  Meistersignaturen. 

2d  ed.  1886.  By  W.  Klein. 

Euphronios Euphronios,  2d  ed.  1887. 

LI Die  griechischen  Vasen  mit  Lieblingsinschriften. 

2d  ed. 1898. 

Kretschmer Die  griechischen  Vaseninschriften  ihrer  Sprache 

nach  untersucht.  By  P.  Kretschmer. 

Luynes,  Descrip Description  de  quelques  vases  peints.  By  H. 

d’A.,  Due  de  Luynes. 

Mus.  etr Museum  Etrusque  de  L.  Bonaparte,  Prince  de 

Canino.  Fouilles  de  1828-29.  Viterbo,  1829. 


xvi  TABLE  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 

Mus.  Greg Museo  Gregoriano. 

Notice  1845 Notice  d’une  collection  de  vases  peints  tires  des 

fouilles  faites  en  Etrurie  par  feu  M.  le  Prince 
de  Canino,  1845.  By  J.  De  Witte. 

Overbeck,  K.  M Griechische  Kunstmythologie.  By  J.  Overbeck. 

Panofka: 

Vasenbildn Von  den  Namen  der  Vasenbildner  in  Bezug  zu 

ihren  bildlichen  Darstellungen.  Th.  Panofka. 

Eigennam Die  griechischen  Eigennamen  mit  koKos. 

Per.  et  Chip Histoire  de  Part  dans  Pantiquite.  By  G.  Perrot 

and  Ch.  Chipiez. 

Rayet  et  Collignon  ....  Histoire  de  la  Ceramique  Grecque.  By  0.  Rayet 

and  M.  Collignon. 

Reinach Repertoire  des  vases  peints.  By  S.  Reinach. 

Res.  etr Reserve  etrusque.  London,  1838. 

Roscher Ausfiihrliches  Lexikon  der  griechischen  und 

romischen  Mythologie. 

Roulez Choix  des  vases  peints  du  Musee  de  Leyde.  By 

J.  Roulez. 

Walters History  of  Ancient  Pottery.  By  H.  B.  Walters. 

Wernicke Die  griechischen  Vasen  mit  Lieblingsnamen.  By 

K.  Wernicke. 

W.  V Wiener  Vorlegeblatter. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


i 


I 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

The  twenty  years  which  have  elapsed  since  the  publication  of 
my  essay  on  Euthymides  have  so  materially  altered  all  the  ideas 
formerly  held  as  to  the  scope  and  significance  of  the  various 
painters  who  belong  to  the  early  period  of  the  red-figured  style 
that  a new  edition  seems  necessary;  especially  because  during 
those  years  no  work  has  appeared  which  treats  at  all  comprehen- 
sively the  activity  of  Euthymides  and  his  various  contemporaries. 

Considering  how  much  the  work  of  all  the  painters  of  this  time 
is  cast  in  the  same  mould  and  how  closely  allied  in  point  of  style 
are  all  the  vases  from  their  different  work-shops,  the  inclusion  of 
only  four  artists  in  the  present  volume  may  seem  somewhat 
arbitrary.  My  original  intention  had  been  to  publish  a small 
monograph  which  should  bring  my  earlier  essay  up  to  date,  but  it 
was  not  long  before  I discovered  the  impossibility  of  discussing 
the  work  of  Euthymides  with  any  degree  of  thoroughness  and 
at  the  same  time  omitting  all  consideration  of  Phintias,  who  of 
all  the  other  artists  of  the  period  seems  most  intimately  connected 
with  him.  The  Kleophrades  painter  is  also  naturally  included 
because  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  at  the  beginning  of 
his  career  he  was  actually  a pupil  of  Euthymides;  in  fact  there 
are  those  who  are  disposed  to  regard  him  as  Euthymides  himself. 
Hypsis,  too,  shows  such  strong  Euthymidean  characteristics  that 
I have  added  him  to  the  group.  I have  not  attempted  to  discuss 
the  work  of  the  Kleophrades  painter  with  as  much  thoroughness 
as  the  others  since  the  work  of  that  artist  has  already  been  very 
comprehensively  published  by  Beazley. 

The  work  of  Smikros,  Oltos,  and  some  of  the  other  contem- 
porary painters  has  not  been  included,  first  because  I do  not 


4 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


regard  them  as  part  of  the  group  of  painters  whose  work  is  here 
described,  and  second  because  had  I done  so  it  would  have 
been  necessary  to  extend  the  scope  of  this  volume  and  analyze 
thoroughly  the  entire  red-figured  style  from  its  beginning  down 
to  the  Persian  Wars,  which  was  not  my  intention. 

One  principle  has  been  followed  with  extreme  care  in  this 
volume  for  which  I feel  sure  I shall  earn  the  gratitude  of  all 
archaeologists.  Every  scholar  knows  the  vexation  of  spirit  which 
comes  from  the  necessity  of  referring  to  half  a dozen  bulky 
volumes  of  plates,  usually  inaccessible  outside  of  a large  library, 
in  order  to  verify  the  conclusions  expressed  in  any  work  dealing 
with  Greek  ceramics.  Every  vase  described  in  this  volume  which 
is  signed  by  or  attributed  to  any  of  the  four  artists  here  discussed, 
has  been  illustrated  by  a separate  plate  or  cut,  thus  eliminating, 
as  far  as  possible,  the  necessity  for  reference  to  other  publications. 
Unfortunately  all  the  plates  are  not  of  the  same  value.  Those 
which  are  taken  from  the  monumental  publication  of  Furtwangler 
and  Reichhold  are  naturally  the  best,  while  those  taken  from 
photographs  are  less  satisfactory,  owing  to  the  inevitable  effect 
of  foreshortening.  When  possible  I have  had  the  photographs 
revised  by  a draftsman  from  the  actual  vase,  and  in  the  case  of 
the  four  amphorae  in  the  British  Museum  (E  253-256)  I have 
included  detail  studies  of  the  heads  of  all  the  figures  taken  from 
photographs. 

It  had  been  my  intention  to  visit  every  one  of  the  more  impor- 
tant European  museums  before  publishing  this  volume,  in  order 
to  make  sure  that  no  vase  which  might  reasonably  be  attributed 
to  any  of  the  four  artists  had  been  overlooked.  The  European 
war  has,  unfortunately,  made  such  a trip  impossible,  and  I am 
obliged  to  let  the  work  appear  in  an  incomplete  state. 

Eor  the  sake  of  convenience  and  to  avoid  useless  repetitions,  all 
the  vases  described  in  this  volume  are  referred  to  by  letter  and 
number:  the  letter  being  the  initial  of  the  artist  in  question  and 
the  numerals  being  Roman  for  the  signed,  Arabic  for  the  unsigned 
and  attributed  vases.  The  complete  list  of  these  vases  is  given 
in  this  chapter.  Likewise,  for  the  same  reasons,  a list  of  the 
motives  used  in  the  decoration  of  the  various  vases  is  included. 


INTRODUCTION 


S 


Numerical  System 


Euthymides 

Vases,  with  signature 
E I Munich  2307 

E II  Munich  2308 

E IV  Turin 
E V Bonn 

E VI  Adria 


EIII 


E I 
E 2 

E 3 

E 4 

E 5 
E 6 
E 7 
E 8 
E 9 

E 10 
E II 
E 12 
E13 
E 14 

E 15 
E 16 
E 17 
E 18 
E 19 

Phintias 

P I 
P II 
PHI 
PIV 
P V 
P VI 

p I 

P 2 

P3 

P4 

P5 

P 6 


Without  signature  but  authorship  certain 
Munich  2309 

Attributed 

British  Museum  E 254 
British  Museum  E 255  (reverse) 

British  Museum  E 256 
Wurzburg  300  (obverse) 

Leyden 

Louvre  G 44 

British  Museum  E 767 

Berlin  2180 

Dresden 

Brussels 

Vienna  333 

Florence  3985 

Athens  C.C.  1157 

Berlin  2304 

Leipzig 

Boston  00.335 

Boston  10.203  (fragment) 

Louvre  G 31  (fragment) 

Athens,  Acropolis  (Pinax) 


With  signature 

Munich  2590 

Corneto 

Baltimore 

British  Museum  E 159 

Leipzig 

Eleusis 

A ttrihuted 

Munich  2421 
Munich  2422 
Louvre  G 41 
Louvre  G 42 

British  Museum  E 255  (obverse) 
Boston  01.8019 


6 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


P7 

Leipzig 

P8 

Petrograd  St.  1275 

Pq 

Rome,  Villa  Giulia  (fragment) 

Hypsis 

With  signature 

HI 

Munich  (4) 

HII 

Rome,  Torlonia  Collection 

Attributed 

H I 

British  Museum  E 253 

Kleophrades 

With  signature 

KI 

Cabinet  des  Medailles  535 

Attributed 

K I 

Rome,  Vatican  496  (93) 

K 2 

Munich  2305 

K3 

Wurzburg  300  (reverse) 

K4 

Corneto 

KS 

Louvre  G 48 

K6 

Cabinet  des  Medailles  536 

Table  of  Ornaments 

The  following  table  of  the  various  ornamental  designs  employed 
as  borders  or  elsewhere  on  the  vases  described  in  this  work  has 
been  introduced  for  the  sake  of  convenience.  To  each  class 
has  been  added  a list  of  the  vases  on  which  the  ornament  is  to  be 
found  and  such  designs  will  be  referred  to  by  class  and  number 
in  all  descriptions  of  vases. 

One  significant  fact  is  the  preponderance  of  b.f.  motives  over 
r.f.  Considering  how  closely  allied  are  the  vases  of  the  early  r.f. 
style  to  the  b.f.  period,  stylistically  as  well  as  chronologically, 
this  is  not  surprising.  Such  r.f.  ornaments  as  occur  are  practically 
direct  translations  from  b.f.  motives  and  not  until  the  r.f.  style  is 
fairly  well  advanced  do  we  see  much  progress  or  individuality  in 
the  use  of  purely  r.f.  decorative  motives. 


INTRODUCTION 


7 


Class  A.  Black-Figured  Motives 

I.  Single  Stripe.  This  may  consist  of  a single  black 
line  on  a reserved  background;  of  applied  purple;  or 
of  a reserved  stripe. 

E IV;  E 7;  E ii;  E 12;  P 6. 


2.  Lotos-Bud  Chain. 

El;  E5. 

3.  Single  Palmette. 

(a)  Simplest  form.  The  palmettes  are  vertical  and 
each  is  entirely  enclosed  by  a circle  formed  by  the 
continuation  of  a line  starting  from  the  center  of 
the  scrolls  in  two  directions.  This  motive  is  rare. 

P7. 

(1))  The  same,  except  that  pear-shaped  drops  are 
placed  between  each  two  palmettes. 

H I (in  this  case  the  alternate  palmettes  are  in- 
verted). 


4.  Running  Palmettes.  These  form  the  favorite 
motive  in  the  work  of  the  four  artists  and  no  less 
than  six  varieties  are  to  be  found. 


(a)  Simple  form.  The  palmettes  are  alternately  in- 
verted, the  scroll  of  each  being  continued  up  or  down 
to  meet  the  scroll  of  its  neighbor,  with  or  without 
the  addition  of  a pair  of  black  dots  above  and  below. 
Eli;  EIII;  E i;  E 4;  E 6;  P II;  P IV;  Pi; 
P 2;  P 3;  P 4;  K i;  K 2;  K 4. 

This  motive  is  usually  employed  as  a lower  border 
except  in  E 6 (sides)  and  K 4 (upper). 

(b)  The  palmettes  face  the  same  way  alternately 
inverted  and  are  almost  entirely  encircled  by  a line 
starting  from  the  scroll  of  one  and  continuing  until 
it  joins  the  adjacent  palmette  at  the  top  of  the 
circle.  Between  each  palmette  and  the  next  a pair 
of  dots. 

E ii;  E,  12. 

(c)  The  same,  except  that  a third  scroll  is  added  to 
the  encircling  line  at  its  beginning  with  a pear-  or 
heart-shaped  drop  placed  opposite. 

E 2;  E 4;  P II;  H I. 

(d)  Similar  to  4 (c)  with  the  addition  of  a fourth 
scroll  in  place  of  the  drop. 

E3;  K5. 


8 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


sismsisis' 


vwwwwww 


(e)  The  palmettes  are  connected  as  before  but  are 
arranged  in  pairs,  scroll  facing  scroll.  Between  each 
pair  two  dots  are  placed  with  a pear-shaped  drop 
at  the  junction  of  the  third  scroll.  This  motive  is 
usually  employed  as  a side  border. 

EIII;  PIV;  Pi;  P2;  Ki. 

(/)  The  same  as  4 (e)  except  for  the  addition  of  two 
pear-shaped  drops  between  each  pair  of  palmettes. 

E 2. 

5.  Addorsed  Palmettes  in  Chain.  Always  used  as 
the  upper  border.  Two  varieties. 

{a)  Single  row  of  small  circles  running  through  the 
center  of  the  chain. 

Eli;  E 2;  K i;  K 2. 

(b)  The  same  except  for  the  addition  of  two  dotted 
circles  in  each  palmette,  above  and  below  the  central 
row  of  circles. 

PIT 

6.  Tongue  Pattern.  One  of  the  very  commonest  mo- 
tives and  almost  invariably  used  as  an  upper  border. 
It  is  frequently  employed  inside  the  rim  and  at  the 
base  of  the  side  handles  of  a hydria. 

E IV;  E 7;  E 8;  E 9;  P IV;  P i;  P 2;  P 6;  P 7; 
K4. 

7.  OvoLO.  A variation  of  the  tongue  pattern,  with 
the  addition  of  dots  below  each  stave,  generally 
used  as  a lower  border. 

E 10;  H II. 

8.  Key,  or  Maeander.  Four  varieties. 

(a)  Single. 

EV;  E3;  Eio;  Eii;  E12;  PIV;  Pi;  P2; 
HI;  K4. 

(b)  Double. 

E 14;  K 6. 

(c)  Double  T shape. 

K4. 

(d)  Double,  crossing,  with  black  or  white  squares. 

E V;  Eg;  H II. 

9.  Zig-zag  Net  Chain.  Usual  border  for  sides. 

El;  EV;  E2;  Eio;  E12;  P2;  P3;  HII;Hi. 


INTRODUCTION 


9 


10.  Checker-Board. 

E VI;  E i6. 

11.  Ivy  Leaves. 

(a)  On  handles.  This  is  universal  on  amphorae  and 
no  exceptions  occur. 

(b)  As  a border  with  korymboi  between  the  leaves. 
E8;  P8. 

12.  Palmette.  Either  b.  or  r.f.  under  base  of  handles, 
a feature  practically  universal  in  amphorae  and  hy- 
driae. 


13.  Rays.  Universal  on  bases  of  all  amphorae  and 
hydriae.  For  example,  cf.  PI.  XIII. 


Class  B.  Red-Figured  Motives 

The  palmette  is  the  only  motive  employed,  either 
single,  running,  or  in  groups. 


1.  Single  Palmette. 

(a)  As  in  A 3 (a)  with  round  dots  between  each  two 
palmettes  which  are  either  vertical  or  lateral.  The 
single  palmette  without  dots  does  not  occur. 

Eg. 

(b)  The  same,  with  pear-shaped  drops  between  each 
two  palmettes  above  and  below.  This  is  the  com- 
monest r.f.  motive. 

E III;  E V;  E 4;  E 5;  P 4;  P 71  H I;  H II;  H i. 

(c)  The  same,  except  that  a spray  is  introduced 
instead  of  the  upper  pair  of  dots.  This  motive  is 
extremely  rare. 

E I. 

(d)  In  place  of  the  drops  a small  tendril  is  introduced 
alternately  above  and  below  at  the  edge  of  each 
palmette. 

EIII. 

(e)  The  same  as  the  preceding  except  that  each 
alternate  palmette  has  two  small  tendrils  on  the 
upper  edge.  Below,  pear-shaped  drops  separating 
each  two  palmettes. 

E I;  E 6;  E 10;  K 5. 

( f)  The  same  with  two  scrolls  below. 

P3. 

2.  This  class  forms  the  connecting  link  between  the 
single  and  running  palmettes.  Two  classes  may  be 
distinguished. 


lO 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


(a)  The  scrolls  are  continued  as  before  to  encircle 
the  palmettes  but  they  form  a loop  (with  dot  inside) 
at  the  start  and  meet  at  the  top  of  the  palmette  in  a 
point.  Between  each  two  palmettes  a spray  with  a 
dot  underneath.  This  pattern  is  very  unusual  and 
only  occurs  once  to  my  knowledge,  on  the  upper 
border  of  E II. 

{b)  The  same,  except  that  the  enclosing  line  of  the 
palmette  is  circular  and  not  pointed.  Between  each 
two  palmettes  a spear-shaped  bud  with  two  scrolls. 
This  motive  is  also  very  rare. 

E ii;  E 12. 

3.  Running  Palmettes.  The  b.f.  motives  of  A 4 are 
repeated  in  the  r.f.  technique. 

(a)  Same  as  A 4 (6) : 

P4;  HI. 

(b)  Same  as  A 4 (c) : 

E I. 

(c)  Same  as  A 4 (e) : 

E V ; P IV ; this  last  varies  in  that  the  drops  at 
the  junction  of  the  third  scroll  are  omitted. 

4.  The  palmettes  are  combined  in  a symmetrical  series 
to  form  a decorative  filling  of  large  spaces.  In  E IV 
and  E 7 a large  central  palmette  is  placed  below  each 
handle  and  connected  with  four  smaller  ones,  each 
with  an  extra  scroll.  In  P I we  have  a large  and 
one  or  two  small  palmettes  under  each  handle;  in 
P 7 a number  of  small  palmettes  similarly  connected. 
Owing  to  the  fragmentary  condition  of  the  vase  it 
is  impossible  to  tell  how  many,  or  if  a large  central 
palmette  was  used  {v.  Plates  V,  XXV,  XXXIV,  and 
Fig.  8). 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  SIGNED  VASES  OF  EUTHYMIDES 

The  signature  of  Euthymides  is  preserved  on  five  vases  — two 
amphorae,  a hydria-kalpis,  a psykter  and  two  fragments  of  a 
plate.  In  addition  we  possess  a sixth  vase,  the  amphora  in 
Munich,  No.  2309,  which,  though  lacking  a signature,  is  univer- 
sally acknowledged  to  be  an  actual  work  of  the  master,  and  is 
therefore  included  in  the  list  of  his  authentic  works. 

The  three  amphorae  (two  signed  and  one  unsigned)  are  com- 
panion pieces  and  singularly  alike  in  form  and  size,^  the  shape 
being  that  common  to  the  later  part  of  the  b.f.  style  and  the 
transitional  period  and  a favorite  with  the  group  of  artists  con- 
temporary with  Andokides.  The  rim  flares  sharply  outwards  and 
between  it  and  the  shoulder  three  purple  stripes  are  painted. 
The  handles  are  of  the  grooved  type  with  an  ivy  pattern  on  the 
exterior  and  a b.f.  palmette  under  their  junction  with  the  shoulder. 
Around  the  foot  a ray  pattern.  All  three  are  now  in  the  Munich 
collection  (No.  2307-2309). 

El.  [PL  I]:  Amphora,  Munich  2307  (Old  number  378).  From 
Vulci. 

Jahn,  Cat.  No.  378,  p.  123. 

0 Gerhard,  Aus.  Vas.  188,  = Reinach  ii,  p.  94. 

Mus.  etr.  1386:  Res.  Hr.  p.  ii,  38. 

Stuart,  Archaeologia  xxiii,  p.  217. 

Panofka,  Vasenbildner,  pi.  4,  i,  2. 

Brunn,  K.G.  ii,  p.  686,  No.  i. 

F.  R.  i,  pp.  63-71,  pi.  14. 

Wernicke,  p.  53,  No.  2. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  3,  E. 

Per.  et  Chip,  x,  p.  456,  figs.  260-261. 

^ I regret  that  it  is  impossible  to  give  the  dimensions  of  these  vases.  They  are  not 
in  the  publication  of  Furtwangler-Reichhold  and  in  Jahn’s  catalogue  of  the  Munich 
collection  the  dimensions  are  not  in  centimeters.  I do  not  know  on  what  basis  the 
measurements  there  are  given. 


12 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Klein,  p.  194,  No.  2. 

Hackl,  p.  25,  xii,  No.  109. 

Chase,  p.  119,  222  (for  design  on  shield). 

Buschor,  p.  150,  fig.  106  (A). 

A.  In  the  center  a beardless  youth  standing  with  body  and 
1.  leg  full  front,  head  and  r.  leg  in  profile  to  1.,  wearing  a fillet  in 
his  hair,  a short  chiton  and  greaves  (ornamented  with  a spiral 
design);  in  the  act  of  adjusting  his  cuirass.  At  the  1.  HEKTOP 
and  to  the  r.  his  shield  seen  in  profile  (device,  head  of  silen  and 
two  black  circles  with  dots).  To  the  r.  his  mother  HEKABE 
(retr.)  to  1.;  of  youthful  appearance,  clad  in  an  Ionic  chiton  with 
kolpos  and  a cloak  high  in  the  neck,  with  a scarf  twisted  round 
her  hair.  Her  r.  breast  and  1.  leg  show  through  the  drapery.  In  her 
r.  she  holds  Hector’s  helmet  (Corinthian  type)  and  in  her  1.  his 
spear,  both  of  which  project  into  the  upper  border.  At  Hector’s 
right  stands  his  father  Priam  to  r.,  partially  bald,  and  bearded 
(his  beard  is  composed  of  black  dots) ; completely  wrapped  in  a 
long  cloak,  and  wearing  shoes.  He  raises  his  r.  with  an  earnest 
gesture  and  holds  a knobbed  staff  in  his  1.  Beside  his  head  to  r. 
rPIAMO^ : and  between  him  and  Hector  the  signature,  in  three 
lines  (second  and  third  lines  separated  by  the  staff)  EAPA4>^EN 
EVGVMIAE^  HO  POVIO. 

B.  Three  dancing,  bearded  figures,  nude  save  for  a narrow 
cloak  draped  round  their  shoulders  or  forearm,  with  vine- 
wreaths  in  their  hair.  The  komast  on  the  1.  stands  on  his  r.  leg 
and  holds  a kantharos  in  his  r.  while  extending  his  1.  palm  up- 
wards, over  which  is  written  KOMAPXO^.  The  central  figure, 
seen  from  behind,  (torso  in  three  quarters,  legs  in  full  profile) 
holds  a knobbed  staff  in  his  r.  the  end  of  which  projects  into  the 
upper  border;  his  1.  is  wrapped  in  his  cloak,  and  he  turns  his 
back  to  the  Komarchos.  Between  his  legs  EVEAEMO:^.  The 
r.  h.  komast  turns  to  the  1.  balancing  himself  on  his  1.  leg.  Over 
his  r.  arm  TEVES  (retr.)  and  between  his  legs  EVEOPI.  Along 
the  1.  edge  of  the  picture  HO^  OVAEPOTE  EV^I^PONIO^. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  wreaths,  fillet  in  Hector’s 
hair  and  the  usual  stripes  on  the  body  of  the  vase.  Outline  of 
hair  incised  in  all  the  figures  except  that  of  Priam  where  it  is 
reserved.  Anatomical  details  and  drapery  in  faint  lines. 


Plate  I 


Munich  2307  (El) 


THE  SIGNED  VASES 


13 


Borders.  The  same  on  both  sides.  Lower,  A 2 : sides,  A 9 : 
upper,  B I (e).  Graffito  on  base  {v.  Fig.  i). 

The  technical  details  of  this  vase  as  well 
as  the  others  described  in  this  chapter  will 
be  considered  in  detail  in  chapter  iii  in  the 
analysis  of  the  style  of  Euthymides. 

Of  the  subject-matter  little  need  be  said. 
On  the  obverse  we  have  the  ordinary  scene 
of  a warrior  preparing  for  his  departure  ^ in 
the  presence  of  his  parents  whom  the  artist 
has  chosen  to  identify  by  names  taken  more 
or  less  at  random  from  the  heroic  cycle.  Almost  any  other  names 
might  have  served.  Also  the  reverse  gives  us  only  three  belated 
komasts  such  as  we  find  so  often  on  the  vases  of  Brygos,  Douris, 
and  the  others.  The  execution  is  extremely  good  and  the  fore- 
shortening though  not  uniformly  successful  is  a distinct  advance 
on  previous  vase-technique  and  is  quite  noteworthy  in  the  figures 
of  Hector  and  the  central  komast  on  the  reverse. 


Fig.  I 


Eli.  [PI.  II]:  Amphora,  Munich  2308  (Old  number  374). 

From  Vulci. 

Jahn,  Cat.  No.  374,  p.  120. 

Brunn,  K.  G.  ii,  p.  686,  No.  2. 

F.  R.  ii,  pp.  109-111,  pi.  81. 

Klein,  p.  194,  No.  3. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  2,  D,  pis.  i,  ii. 

Per.  et  Chip,  x,  p.  457,  fig.  262. 

Res.  etr.  p.  10,  31;  Cat.  etr.  146. 

Chase,  p.  121  (for  shield  device). 

A.  In  the  center  a beardless  youth  standing  with  body  and 
r.  leg  full  front,  head  in  profile  to  1.,  1.  leg  in  profile  to  r.,  wear- 
ing a fillet  in  his  hair,^  in  the  act  of  adjusting  his  cuirass. 

^ For  the  motive  of  adjusting  the  cuirass  cf.  the  column-krater  formerly  in  the 
Jatta  collection,  Ruvo,  (Jatta,  Ram.  Milt.  1908,  pp.  332-338,  figs.  2 and  5),  now  in 
New  York,  attributed  by  Beazley  {J .II.S.  1912,  p.  355,  No.  6)  to  the  Pan  Master. 

2 It  is  not  often  that  one  is  able  to  detect  an  error  in  the  excellent  drawings  of 
Reichhold.  In  the  case  of  this  vase,  however,  two  mistakes  occur  in  the  plate  in  F.R. 
since  the  fillet  worn  by  Thorykion  hangs  in  two  ends  not  one  (correctly  given  in  pi.  i 
of  my  essay)  and  the  palmettes  of  the  lower  border  have  dots  between. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


14 

Along  his  r.  leg  0OPVKION.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  figure  is 
a duplicate  of  that  of  Hector  on  E I except  that  the  greaves  are 
omitted  and  the  weight  placed  on  the  foreshortened  r.  foot  instead 
of  as  there  on  the  L;  furthermore  he  is  called  Thorykion.  On 
either  side  an  archer  in  the  usual  Scythian  costume  of  kidariSy 
jerkin  and  anaxyrides.  The  one  on  the  r.  holds  a battle-axe 
{sagaris)  in  his  r.  and  a Scythian  bow  in  his  1.  with  a quiver 
buckled  around  his  waist.  His  dress  is  dotted  over  with  a series 
of  small  circles  and  marks  like  button-holes.  Beside  his  r.  arm 
EV0VBOV[O]^  (retr.).  The  other  archer  is  similarly  clad  and 
likewise  holds  his  bow  in  his  1.  but  also  holds  the  shield  of  Thory- 
kion in  his  r.  (seen  in  profile : device,  dancing  silen) . Along  his  r. 
arm  and  leg  senseless  inscriptions.  Along  Thorykion’s  1.  leg  the 
signature  in  three  lines  H[0  r0Vl]O  E[APA]<1>:^  EN  EV0VMI- 
AE^E^.i 

B.  In  the  center,  in  profile  to  r.,  a nude  youth  holding  aloft 
in  both  hands  a discus  which  projects  into  the  upper  border, 
and  wearing  a victor’s  crown  in  his  hair.  In  front  of  him  <1>A  VVO^. 
Facing  him  in  profile  to  1.  a bearded  trainer  wearing  a cloak  high 
in  the  neck  like  that  worn  by  Hecuba  on  E I,  which  leaves  his 
r.  arm  and  shoulder  bare,  holding  in  his  outstretched  r.  a two- 
forked  branch.  In  his  hair  a laurel  wreath.  Along  his  r.  arm 
0P^IMENE$:  (retr.).  At  the  1.  of  the  group  a second  nude  youth 
to  r.  wearing  the  victor’s  crown.  Below  his  outstretched  1.  the 
name  PENTA0V[0]^.  Under  the  branch  held  by  the  trainer 
the  signature  (retr.)  in  two  lines  EV0VM[ I] A E^  H0  r0VIO;  this 
time  the  verb  is  omitted. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  wreath,  fillet,  crowns,  and 
bow-string.  Suggestion  of  whiskers  in  faint  lines  on  the  cheeks  of 
Thorykion  and  Pentathlos.  Anatomical  details  and  drapery  in 
faint  lines.  Outline  of  hair  incised  on  all  the  figures. 

Borders.  Obverse.  Lower,  A 4 {d)\  sides,  A 9:  upper,  B 2 {a). 
Lower  and  side  borders  same  on  the  reverse  but  the  upper  is 
A 5 {a). 

^ Furtwangler  reads  the  inscription  EWvfxidrjs  e/x*  eypa<f>(T€v.  The  last  two  letters 
of  Euthymides’  name  are  repeated  and  are  perfectly  clear;  by  no  possibility  can  kp.' 
be  read. 


Plate  II 


Munich  2308  (E  II) 


1 


THE  SIGNED  VASES 


IS 


The  duplication  of  the  central  figure  on  both  this  vase  and  E I 
makes  it  evident  that  the  two  are  companion  pieces  and  that 
they  are  by  the  same  hand  even  were  the  signature  missing  on 
one  of  them.  It  is  probable  that  E II  was  painted  first,  for  the 
composition  is  inferior  to  that  of  E I as  well  as  the  execution.  As 
was  remarked  above,  the  name  given  to  the  central  figure  of  the 
obverse  is  purely  arbitrary  and  the  scene  presents  little  of  interest. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  figures  on  the  reverse. 

EIII.  [PI.  Ill]:  Amphora,  Munich  2309  (Old  number  410). 

From  Vulci. 

Jahn,  Cat.  p.  141. 

Res.  etr.,  p.  28;  Cat.  etr.,  p.  no. 

Gerhard,  Aus.  Vas.  168  = Reinach  ii,  p.  86. 

F.  R.  i,  pp.  173-181,  pl-  33- 
Klein,  p.  196,  No.  i. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  20,  i. 

Per.  et  Chip,  x,  pp.  459,  note  i,  455,  595,  fig.  338. 

Hackl,  p.  47,  No.  547;  p.  40,  No.  408. 

Kretschmer,  p.  192. 

Roscher  i,  p.  1934  (A). 

Buschor,  p.  1 51,  fig.  107  (detail  of  A). 

A.  Four  figures  instead  of  the  usual  three.  At  the  r.  of 
the  picture  a youth,  nude  save  for  a light  cloak  draped  over  his 
r.  arm  and  a flower  wreath  in  his  hair,  body  and  r.  leg  full  front, 
head  in  profile  to  1.,  clasps  around  the  waist  a female  figure  whom 
he  has  lifted  clear  of  the  ground,  both  hands  being  locked  together 
to  secure  a better  hold.  To  the  1.  of  his  head  GE^EV^  (retr.). 
The  female  figure,  identified  as  KOPONE  by  the  inscription  along 
the  r.  border,  is  clad  in  an  Ionic  chiton  and  cloak  high  in  the  neck. 
She  wears  a stephane  and  scarf,  like  those  worn  by  Hecuba  on 
E I,  and  earrings.  With  her  r.  she  clasps  the  r.  wrist  of  Theseus 
while  with  her  1.  she  toys  with  his  luxuriant  hair.  In  the  center 
striding  to  r.,  is  a second  female  figure,  clad  also  in  an  Ionic  chiton 
and  himation,  with  a scarf  in  her  hair  and  earrings.  With  her  1. 
she  catches  Korone’s  arm  and  with  her  r.  grasps  the  mantle  of 
Theseus.  Along  the  line  of  her  cloak  HEVENE.  At  the  1.  of  the 
picture  advancing  to  r.  with  legs  in  profile,  body  three-quarters 
front  and  head  turned  back  to  1.  is  a bearded  figure,  wearing  a 


i6 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


flower  wreath,  and  nude  save  for  a light  mantle  thrown  over  his  r. 
shoulder  and  1.  forearm.  In  his  r.  he  carries  his  spear  and  in  his  1.  a 
sword  in  its  scabbard  to  which  the  belt  is  attached.  To  the  r. 
of  his  head  PEPIGOV^.  His  spear  and  the  head  of  Korone 
project  into  the  upper  border.  Between  his  legs  HEPE^  (retr.). 

B.  Continuation  of  the  same  scene.  At  the  r.  a female  figure 
in  profile  striding  to  r.  clothed  as  usual  in  Ionic  chiton  and  man- 
tle, with  a flower  wreath  in  her  hair.  Her  r.  arm,  which  pro- 
jects into  the  side  border,  as  does  also  her  1.  foot,  is  raised  in 
astonishment  while  her  1.  holds  the  edge  of  her  chiton.  Between 
her  and  the  r.  h.  border,  broken  by  her  r.  arm,  EIAON0EMEN. 
Behind  her  a second  female  figure,  similarly  clad  with  the  addi- 
tion of  a saccos,  stephane  and  earrings,  advances  in  the  same 
direction.  With  her  r.  she  grasps  the  edge  of  her  skirt  and  with 
the  other  her  cloak.  Behind  her  ANTIOPEIA.  At  the  1.  of  the 
picture  a bearded  man  to  r.  entirely  wrapped  in  a cloak  and 
wearing  a flower  wreath  in  his  hair,  his  r.  raised  in  surprise  and  in 
his  1.  a knobbed  staff.  Behind  him  + AIPE  + 0E^EV^. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  wreaths  and  sword  belt  of 
Perithous.  The  hair  outline  is  incised  except  the  little  bunch 
of  hair  over  the  forehead  of  all  the  figures,  and  the  hair  of  Korone. 
The  details  of  the  figures  of  both  women  on  the  reverse  show 
through  the  drapery.  Suggestion  of  whiskers  on  the  cheek  of 
Theseus  and  eyelashes  in  faint  lines,  which  are  also  used  for 
the  lines  of  the  drapery  and  anatomical  details.  In  addition  the 
veins  of  Theseus’  r.  foot  are  indicated. 

Borders.  Obverse.  Lower,  A 4 (a) : sides,  A 4 (e) : upper,  B i (J). 
Reverse.  Upper  and  lower  the  same  as  on  the  obverse,  but  the 
sides  are  A 9.  Graffito  on  base  (Fig.  2). 

The  attitude  of  the  bearded  figure  on  the  reverse  is  almost  a 
duplicate  of  the  figure  of  Priam  on  E I.  By  a curious  oversight 
the  1.  foot  of  the  central  figure  on  the  reverse  has  been  omitted. 
In  point  of  technique  the  vase  is  distinctly  better  than  either  E I 
or  H. 

The  inscriptions  are  decidedly  troublesome.  Theseus  and 
Perithous  are  simple  enough,  but  the  name  Korone  is  puzzling 
since  we  have  no  mention  of  any  such  character  in  Greek  myth- 


Plate  III 


Munich  2309  (E  III) 


THE  SIGNED  VASES 


17 


ology  at  all.  Furtwangler  has  evolved  a very  complicated  and 
ingenious  theory  that  we  have  here  a Thessalian  goddess  Aigle- 

Korone  or  Koronis  whom  he 
supposes  to  have  been  car- 
ried off  by  Theseus  and  he 
considers  that  the  scene  rep- 
resents Theseus  as  a regular 
Don  Juan  and  that  to  em- 
phasize this  fact,  two  of 
Theseus’  lady-loves,  Helene 
and  Antiopea  are  intro- 
duced. But  considering  that 
the  rape  of  Helene  by  The- 
seus was  a well-known  myth 
and  that  inscriptional  errors,  as  we  shall  see,  are  very  common 
in  the  work  of  Euthymides,  it  is  certainly  more  rational  to  sup- 
pose as  Engelmann  naturally  assumed  in  his  discussion  of  the 
myth  (Roscher’s  Lex.  i,  p.  1956)  that  the  figures  were  wrongly 
labelled  by  the  painter  of  the  inscriptions,  than  to  wander  round 
Robin  Hood’s  barn  to  evolve  a myth  which  has  absolutely  no 
literary  sanction.  That  Antiopea  appears  here  because  she  was 
connected  with  Theseus  in  the  artist’s  mind  seems  probable,  as 
she  is  not  dressed  as  an  Amazon.  Since,  too,  we  find  Euthymides 
using  a number  of  names  for  which  no  literary  authority  exists, 
the  addition  of  one  more  name  need  not  trouble  us.  Had  the 
figures  been  rightly  labelled  every  one  would  have  dismissed 
Korone  as  a name  like  Thorykion  or  Teles.  In  reading  Eurt- 
wangler’s  elaborate  discussion  of  this  point  it  is  hard  to  decide 
which  is  more  remarkable  — the  extraordinary  brilliancy  of  the 
scholar  or  his  amazing  lack  of  common  sense.  The  name  of 
Heres  is  not  met  with  elsewhere  and  it  is  possible  that  it  was 
used  to  fill  the  space,  the  /caXos  being  omitted. 

For  the  reverse,  as  in  the  amphorae  signed  by  Euthymides,  we 
should  have  expected  each  figure  to  bear  its  own  name.  Only  one 
does  so,  that  of  Antiopea,  and  no  amount  of  ingenuity  will  twist 
the  other  inscriptions  into  names.  niay  be  as 

Furtwangler  suggests  (loc.  cit.  p.  176)  intended  for  x^tpe  ye  Qr]aevs! 


i8 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Such  dedications  are  common  enough  but  here  again  ye  is  entirely 
unnecessary  and  the  easier  way  is  to  assume  the  insertion  of  an 
additional  letter,  like  the  two  extra  letters  in  Euthymides’  name 
on  E II.  Eor  eihovBeixev  I confess  frankly  I can  give  no  interpre- 
tation or  even  suggestion.  Furtwangler  again  would  read  here 
elbov:  Beo^ixev  ‘‘I  have  seen,  let  us  run,”  in  his  own  words  “dass 
wir  ihm  (Theseus)  nachkommen  und  ihn  hindern  konnen  — also 
eine  prachtige  Erlauterung  zu  den  eilig  losrennenden  MMchen.” 
This  explanation  is  of  course  possible  but  how  convincing  is 
another  matter. 

E IV.  [Pis.  IV  and  V,  and  Eigs.  3 and  4]:  Psykter,  Museum  of 

University  of  Turin.  From  Vulci  (Bomarzo):  h.  m.  0.343; 

d.  m.  0.272. 

Kliigmann,  Amt.  d.  Inst.  1870,  pp.  267-271,  pis.  0,  P. 

Klein,  p.  196,  No.  7.  Hartwig,  p.  258,  No.  15. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  2,  B;  /.  I?.  A.,  1915,  pp.  189-195,  pis.  v,  vi. 

The  vase  was  formerly  in  the  Bazzichelli  collection  at  Viterbo 
but  was  acquired  sometime  after  1870  (the  date  of  Kliigmann’s 
publication  of  the  vase  in  the  Annali)  by  Professor  Fabretti  of  the 
University  of  Turin,  who,  in  a little-known  pamphlet  entitled 
II  Museo  di  Antichitd  della  R.  Universitd  di  Torino  published  in 
Turin  in  1872,  refers  to  it  as  follows;  a vase  painted  by  Euthy- 
mides of  most  rare  form,  published  in  the  Annali  belongs  to  the 
excavations  of  Bomarzo  and  increases  the  value  of  the  collection 
of  vases  of  Etruria”  (p.  35).^ 

This  publication  of  Fabretti’s  seems  to  have  escaped  the  atten- 
tion of  the  archaeologists  since  the  vase  is  mentioned  by  Klein  in 
the  M eistersignaturen  as  being  still  at  Viterbo.  Some  years  ago 
Professor  G.  E.  Rizzo,  of  the  University  of  Turin,  came  across  the 
fragments  of  a vase  in  the  storeroom  of  the  museum,  which,  when 
put  together,  proved  to  be  the  long-lost  psykter.  With  extreme 
generosity  Professor  Rizzo,  on  learning  of  my  intention  to  publish 
a second  edition  of  Euthymides,  promptly  resigned  his  rights  to 
the  vase  in  my  favor  and  turned  over  to  me  the  excellent  drawings 

^ For  the  above  information  I am  greatly  indebted  to  Mr.  Stephen  B.  Luce,  Jr., 
of  the  University  Museum,  Philadelphia. 


Plate  IV 


PsYKTER  IN  Turin  (E  IV)  reverse 


1 


Plate  V 


PsYKTER  IN  Turin  (E  IV)  obverse 


THE  SIGNED  VASES  1 9 

of  Sig.  Baglione,  from  which  the  present  plates  as  well  as  those  of 
my  article  in  the  Hellenic  Journal  have  been  made. 

The  form  of  the  psykter,  save  for  the  addition  of  the  handles  is 
practically  the  same  as  the  Hetairae  psykter  of  Euphronios  in 

Petrograd  (F.  R.  II,  pi. 
63 ) . The  base  is  separated 
from  the  pedestal  by  a 
single  moulding  and  an- 
other moulding  occurs  at 
the  junction  of  the  neck 
and  shoulder.  On  the 
neck  is  a flange  doubtless 
to  hold  a cover  now  miss- 
ing. 

A.  Two  nude  youths 
wrestling.  The  one  on  the 
1.  has  a strangle-hold  with 
his  1.  around  the  neck  and 
r.  shoulder  of  his  oppo- 
nent who  totters  forward ; 
both  his  hands  are  locked 
together  like  those  of  The- 
seus on  E III.  To  the 
r.  of  the  head  of  the  1.  h. 
figure  GE^EV^;  between  his  legs  EVAE  NAI  + I (the  last  two 
letters  run  into  and  under  the  stripe  of  the  border).  Between  the 
two  wrestlers  KV[.  . ,]0N  and  to  the  r.  of  the  r.  h.  figure  the 
signature  in  two  lines  EVGVMIAE^  EAPA4>^EN;  between  his  legs 

HO  rovio. 

B.  Two  athletes  to  1.,  nude,  save  for  a flower  wreath  in 
their  hair,  engaged  in  scraping  themselves  with  strigils.^  Between 
them  a pickaxe  {dikella),  and  at  the  1.  of  the  group  a mattock 
(skapane).  Between  the  figures  <t>AVVVO^  (retr.);  below,  the 
signature  in  three  lines  EVGVMIAE^  EAPA4>:^EN  HOPVIO  (sicf). 
To  the  1.  of  the  1.  h.  athlete  0[ ]OPA  also  rertograde. 

^ Though  the  r.  forearm  of  the  youth  on  the  1.  is  missing  there  can  be  little  doubt 
of  the  action. 


Fig.  3 


20 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  wreaths,  and  the  stripes  on 
the  body,  shoulder  moulding,  neck  and  rim.  Faint  lines  for  the 
anatomical  details.  Outline  of  hair  incised  in  all  the  figures. 

Borders.  Both  pictures  have  as  their  lower  border  a purple 
stripe  carelessly  executed  as  it  actually  passes  through  the  feet  of 
the  figures  of  the  obverse.  The  upper  border  is  a tongue  pattern 
encircling  the  entire  vase.  Below  and  at  the  sides  of  the  handles 
five  palmettes  combined  which  form  the  division  between  the  two 
sides  separating  them  into  two  groups  of  two  figures  each. 

Part  of  the  1.  h.  figure  and  most  of  the  palmettes  on  the  reverse 
and  a few  unimportant  spots  on  the  obverse  have  been  restored, 
but  the  vase  is,  on  the  whole,  in  fairly  good  condition. 

Of  the  four  figures  two  can  be  identified  with  perfect  certainty. 
One  is  Theseus  and  evidently  some  exploit  is  represented;  on  the 
reverse  is  an  athlete,  Phayllos,  so  that  we  most  probably  have  a 
mere  athletic  scene  with  no  mythological  significance.  Unfortu- 
nately both  the  other  figures  have  lost  the  important  parts  of  their 
inscriptions  and  can  only  be  identified  by  conjecture. 

Since  we  have  Theseus  on  the  obverse  wrestling  with  an  oppo- 
nent it  has  usually  been  assumed  that  his  adversary  is  Kerkyon. 
But  by  no  possibility  can  we  read  the  fragmentary  inscription 
K\[.  . ,]0N  as  Kerkyon.  Not  only  is  it  doubtful  whether  the 
last  letter  is  to  be  read  as  an  N or  an  ^ but  the  second  letter  is  most 
certainly  not  E.  It  may  be  V or  V.  It  cannot  be  an  A and  as  the 
space  requires  three  letters  KaXos  is  ruled  out.  The  only  plau- 
sible combinations,  are,  as  Kliigmann  has  suggested,  KXetros  or 
KXurtos,  but  neither  of  these  names,  though  not  unknown  to 
Greek  mythology,  has  any  connection  whatsoever,  as  far  as  we 
know,  with  the  Theseus  legend.  Kerkyon  is  the  only  adversary 
who  would  be  suitable  in  a wrestling  bout,  since  all  the  other 
adversaries  of  Theseus  — Prokrustes,  Sinis,  Skiron,  and  the 
Minotaur  — have  some  definite  attribute  to  distinguish  them. 

Pettier  has  suggested  {Louvre  Cat.,  hi,  p.  696)  that  the  inscrip- 
tions may  have  been  added  by  workmen  or  apprentices  and  not 
by  the  artists  themselves.  Considering  that  on  this  vase  we  have  a 
mistake  in  the  signature  and  another  on  E II  as  well  as  some  sense- 
less inscriptions;  that  repeated  mistakes  occur  in  the  signatures 


THE  SIGNED  VASES 


21 


of  both  Phintias  and  Pamphaios;  this  suggestion  is  certainly 
plausible.  I am  inclined  to  think,  as  the  only  reasonable  explana- 
tion, that  Kerkyon  was  meant  after  all,  and  that  whoever  painted 
the  inscription  did  it  carelessly  and  wrote  KV[PKV]ON  instead 
of  KEPKVON. 

We  have  the  same  trouble  with  the  figures  on  the  reverse. 
Phayllos  offers  no  difficulty  and  will  be  discussed  later.  But  the 
name  of  the  second  figure  is  distinctly  puzzling.  The  first  letter  is 
certainly  0 and  the  last  three  letters  OPA  which  will  not  do  for 
a masculine  name.  On  this  account  Kliigmann  wished  to  read  a 
sentence  ending  with  opa  (‘‘see”)  an  interpretation  in  line  with 
Furtwangler’s  reading  of  ubovdepev  on  E III.  Now  assuming,  as 
is  most  probable,  that  the  same  spacing  existed  in  the  break 
which  is  employed  in  the  other  inscriptions,  we  have  room  for  just 
seven  letters  and  since  three  of  the  four  figures  are  certainly 
identified  by  names,  the  probabilities  are  that  this  inscription 
represented  a name  as  well.  I can  find  but  one  combination  to 
fit  and  that  is  0[VVMri0A]0P0^.^  We  shall  treat  this  name 
more  in  detail  later  when  we  analyze  Euthymides’  use  of  the 
name. 

We  have  already  noticed  the  addition  of  the  two  extra  letters 
in  the  signature.  The  exclamation  evye  valx^!  is  very  character- 
istic of  Euthymides  who  seems  to  have  taken  a peculiar  satisfac- 
tion in  his  work  and  advertised  its  quality  — witness  the  fling  at 
Euphronios  on  E I mentioned  above. 

^ That  is  to  say  the  painter  wrote  ’0\vfjL7no86pa  instead  of  the  masculine  form. 

Professor  Paul  Wolters  has  kindly  sent  me  the  following  note  on  this  name.  “ Zu 
dem  Namen  des  zweiten  Ringers  mochte  ich  bemerken  dass  die  Endung  . . opa 
doch  sicher  ist.  Der  Name  ’Op6ay6pa{s)  wiirde  also  passen.  Die  scheinbar 
weibliche  Endung  darf  uns  nicht  bekiimmern.  Allerdings  hat  Hauser  (Jhb.  1895, 
p.  157,  7:  F.R.  ii,  p.  268,  3)  die  Signatur  Tip.ay6pa  eir,  deshalb  auf  eine  Malerin 
bezogen.  Aber  nicht  nur  im  Bootischen  fallt  das  -s  der  mannlichen  Namen  oft  ab; 
vgl.  Kretschmer,  p.  185:  Charlotte  Frankl,  Salyr  und  Bakchennamen,  p.  67.  Es 
geht  nicht  an,  alle  diese  Falle  auf  Zufall  oder  auf  bootische  Herkunft  des  Malers  zu 
schieben.” 

I should  gladly  accept  Professor  Wolters’  very  neat  suggestion  were  it  not  for  the 
fact  that  as  the  spacing  of  the  letters  in  all  the  other  names  is  quite  regular,  seven 
letters  or  at  the  very  least  six,  are  demanded  to  fill  in  the  break  in  the  name  and  for 
that  of  Orthagoras  only  four  are  required.  While  I do  not  regard  my  suggestion  as 
by  any  means  satisfactory  I prefer  to  retain  it  pending  a better  one. 


22 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


One  detail  of  the  painting  of  the  obverse  demands  notice.  If 
the  drawing  be  examined  carefully  it  will  be  seen  that  the  line  of 

the  body  and  1.  leg  of 
Kerkyon  from  armpit 
to  heel  is  very  broken 
and  irregular  (Fig.  4). 
This  is  so  strange  and 
so  contrary  to  the  tech- 
nique of  the  period  that 
one  might  almost  as- 
sume it  is  due  to  care- 
less copying  by  the 
maker  of  the  drawing. 
Professor  Rizzo,  in  re- 
ply to  my  question  on  this  point,  has  kindly  sent  me  a photo- 
graph of  the  detail  and  writes  me  as  follows: 

Ho  esaminato  il  vaso  e se  Lei  osserva  bene  la  fotografia  che 
Le  mando,  la  irregolarita  nel  polpaccio  della  gamba  sinistra  di 
Kerkyon  esiste;  anzi  nel  vaso  originale  si  vede  di  piu  per  il  con- 
tras to  del  nero  sul  rosso  del  fondo.”  We  must  therefore  regard 
this  as  existing  in  the  original  though  it  is  certainly  unusual;  I 
cannot  recall  a similar  instance  on  any  signed  vase  and  the  only 
suggestion  I can  offer  is  that  even  though  a master  signed  a vase, 
certain  details  such  as  filling  in  the  background,  etc.,  may  have 
been  left  to  the  apprentice.  In  fact  this  feature,  together  with 
the  careless  drawing  of  the  border  stripe  through  the  feet,  and  the 
inaccurate  inscriptions,  seems  to  corroborate  the  suggestion  of 
Pot  tier  quoted  above. 

Save  in  a few  details  the  palmettes  are  similar  to  those  on  the 
upper  border  of  the  obverse  of  E I and  have  nothing  to  distinguish 
them  from  those  used  by  all  the  artists  at  this  time. 

Since  both  the  psykter  and  E III  represent  the  same  perfection 
of  technique,  I am  disposed  to  regard  the  two  as  contemporaneous 
and  probably  slightly  later  in  date  than  E I and  II. 


Fig.  4 


Plate  VI 


, ■ . J» 


J 


THE  SIGNED  VASES  23 

E V.  [PL  VI]:  Kalpis,  Bonn  Museum.  From  Nola:  h.  m. 

0.44. 

Kekule,  A.  Z.  1873,  pp.  95,  96,  pi.  9 = Reinach  i,  p.  415. 

J)  Klein,  p.  195,  No.  4. 

/W  Brunn,  Bull,  dell’  Inst.,  1851,  p.  121;  K.  G.  ii,  p.  687. 

I Wernicke,  p,  52. 

\ / Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  2,  C. 

V, Two  youths  wearing  fillets,  on  couches,  back  to 

back,  with  himatia  wrapped  around  the  lower  part 
of  their  bodies  leaving  the  torso  bare.  The  r.  h.  youth  is  playing 
the  double  flutes:  the  one  on  the  1.  rests  on  his  1.  elbow  and 
holds  the  krotala  in  each  hand.  On  the  r.  [^M]IKV0O^,  on 
the  1.  MEAAKVE^  KAVO^  (retr.).  Above,  EV0[VMIAE^] 
EAPAcl>E. 

Above  A 9 : at  sides  A 8 (^z) : and  below  AS  (d).  Around  belly  of 
vase  B i (b).  The  hair  of  both  figures,  as  Professor  Loschcke 
informs  me,  is  reserved.  The  vase  has  been  burnt  and  the  surface 
is  badly  defaced.  The  shape  is  that  characteristic  of  the  later 
period,  but  the  signature  is  that  usual  in  the  Epiktetan  cycle. 
Consequently  we  must  assume  that  the  introduction  of  the 
kalpis  is  slightly  earlier  than  has  generally  been  supposed.  Some 
years  later  it  becomes  the  prevailing  shape  and  displaces  the 
earlier  form  with  the  shoulder  sharply  separated  from  the  body. 
The  names  will  be  discussed  in  the  next  chapter. 

E VI.  [Fig.  5]:  Plate,  Adria,  formerly  in  Museo  Bocchi. 
Present  whereabouts  unknown. 

Schone,  Mus.  Bocchi,  pi.  iv,  2,  No.  372. 

Klein,  p.  194,  No.  i. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  i,  A. 

The  plate  is  in  two  pieces.  On  the  larger  piece  the  1.  leg  from 
the  knee  down  of  a warrior  with  greaves,  holding  a shield  in  his 
1.  In  the  field  EA  P A<t>  E.  On  the  smaller  fragment  an  arm  holding 
some  object  not  to  be  defined  with  certainty:  possibly  the  lower 
part  of  his  helmet.  It  certainly  is  not  a sword  handle.  In  the 
field  EV©VMI[AE^]. 


24 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Around  the  rim  of  the  plate  in  the  larger  fragment  A lo.  The 
plate  is  so  fragmentary  that  no  satisfactory  conclusions  can  be 
drawn  from  it  except  that  it  shows  the  use  of  the  imperfect  like 


Fig.  5 


E V and  is  consequently  to  be  dated  in  the  Epiktetan  cycle.  The 
border  is  unusual  and  will  be  found  later  on  an  attributed  vase 
(E  i6). 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 

Considering  how  large  Euthymides  now  looms  among  the  vase- 
painters  of  the  late  sixth  and  early  fifth  centuries  it  is  strange 
that  it  is  only  comparatively  recently  that  he  has  attracted  his 
fair  share  of  attention.  Furtwangler  was  almost  the  first  to 
emphasize  the  importance  of  this  master  {Berl.  Phil.  Woch.,  1894, 
pp.  1 13  ff.)  and  since  that  time  hardly  a work  on  vase-painting  of 
this  period  but  credits  him  with  a position  second  only  to  that 
of  Euphronios  himself.^  We  now  see  him  as  the  most  prominent 
figure  of  the  so-called  Epiktetan  cycle  (were  it  not  that  the  name 
is  now  so  generally  accepted  one  would  feel  tempted  to  call  it  the 

Euthymidean  cycle  ”)>  almost  as  much  of  an  innovator  as  the 
group  of  Andokides  masters  and  possessing  more  technical  skill 
than  the  other  artists  of  the  Epiktetan  group. 

Even  if  an  Athenian  Vasari  had  survived  to  us  it  is  doubtful 
whether  he  would  have  thought  it  worth  while  to  publish  a biog- 
raphy of  any  Athenian  potter.  Such  literary  references  to  them 
as  we  have  in  classical  authors  are  little  better  than  contemptuous. 
Consequently  any  attempt  we  may  make  to  reconstruct  their 
lives  or  activity  must  be  based  entirely  on  the  internal  evidence 
of  their  work.  In  the  case  of  Euthymides  we  must  depend  on  the 
following  data: 

{a)  Signature  and  inscriptions 
{h)  Use  of  /caXos  names 

(c)  Relation  to  the  other  artists  of  the  period 
{d)  Style  and  technical  details 

^ One  cannot  protest  too  strongly  at  the  statement  made  by  Perrot  (Per.  & 
Chip.  X,  p.  459,  note  i)  “ C’est  Furtwangler  qui  a invente  Euthymides.  II  ne 
goutait  pas  les  ecrits  de  Klein  qui  s’etait  attache  a mettre  Euphronios  hors  de  pair. 
En  haine  de  Klein  il  prit  Euphronios  en  grippe  et  ne  put  pas  se  defendre  d’cxalter 
Euthymides  a ses  depens;  mais  il  n’a  pu  le  faire  avec  quelque  apparence  de  raison 
qu’en  portant  au  compte  d’Euthymides  des  vases  dont  Tattribution  a ce  maitre 


25 


26 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


(a)  Signature  and  Inscriptions 

At  once  we  find  ourselves  confronted  by  the  problem  which 
has  never  yet  been  solved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  archaeolo- 
gists : what  is  the  true  difference  between  the  formulae  ewolTjaep 
and  eypaxpev  ? ^ It  is  simple  enough  in  the  case  of  a vase  bearing 
both  formulae  for  we  know  then  that  the  artist  signing  with 
eTTOirjaev  was  the  maker  of  the  vase  or  the  proprietor  of  the  work- 
shop whence  the  vase  originated,  while  the  artist  signing  with 
eypaxj/ev  was  the  actual  painter  of  the  scenes  on  it.  But  in 
the  case  of  the  formula  e7rolr]aev  alone  are  we  to  assume  that 
the  potter  was  the  artist  as  well,  and  vice-versa  in  the  case  of 
eypaxpev?^  Is  eTrolriaev  simply  the  hall-mark  of  the  atelier,  so  to 
speak,  which  produced  the  vase  and  is  the  potter  the  proprietor 
with  a number  of  workmen  under  him  ? Did  the  potter,  as  Pot- 
tier  ^ has  suggested,  make  a series  of  designs  from  which  his  sub- 
ordinates chose  their  subjects  ? 

To  none  of  these  questions  unfortunately  is  a categorical  answer 
possible;  we  can  only  state  the  conclusions  which  have  met  with 
fairly  general  acceptance. 

First,  it  seems  most  probable  that  the  formula  iirolrjaep  was 
that  used  by  the  proprietor  of  the  atelier  as  a sort  of  hall-mark 
of  his  factory  and  may  or  may  not  indicate  that  he  was  the  painter 

demeurera  toujours  conjecturale,  tels  que  ceux  ou  sont  figures  I’enlevement  de  Cor- 
one  par  Thesee  et  le  meurtre  d’Egisthe  par  Oreste.”  (On  p.  595  Perrot  admits 
absolutely  the  authenticity  of  the  Theseus  and  Corone  vase.)  That  Euthymides  was 
Eurtwangler’s  favorite  among  the  vase-painters  is  true,  but  to  say  that  he  was  so 
chosen  simply  through  jealousy  and  dislike  of  another  scholar  was  a suggestion  quite 
unworthy  of  a savant  of  the  late  Professor  Perrot’s  standing. 

^ Cf.  Pottier’s  admirable  survey  in  the  Louvre  Cat.  hi,  pp.  690-715;  also  Per. 
et  Chip,  ix,  pp.  358-366.  Eor  the  literature  on  the  subject  and  a general  summary 
of  the  various  views  v.  Leonhard,  Ueber  einige  Vasen  aus  der  Werkstatt  des  HieroUj 
Greifswald,  1912,  p.  21;  Radford,  J.H.S.  1915,  pp.  107  ff. 

2 Exekias,  Nearchos,  Epiktetos,  Douris,  and  Myson  are  the  only  artists  who 
sign  with  the  double  formula  as  “ potter  and  painter  too  ” on  the  same  vase.  Cf. 
Per.  et  Chip,  ix,  p.  328.  A fragment  from  the  Acropolis,  A i,  has  the  formula 

[’E]7Ti/cri7ros  kTroi[T](Tev  Kal  eyp\a\pev. 

3 Gaz.  des  Beaux  Arts,  1902,  pp.  24  ff.  30;  Douris,  p.  12.  This  theory  has  not 
met  with  general  acceptance  and  has  been  attacked  by  Hauser  {B.  P.  W.  1907,  p. 
693).  Cf.  also  Pottier’s  reply,  Mon.  Piot,  1909,  pp.  134  ff. 


THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 


27 


as  well.  In  the  b.f.  style  it  seems  certain  that  the  formula 
included  the  painting  of  the  vase  though  the  converse  that  the 
formula  eypaxpev  included  the  actual  making  of  the  vase  does  not 
follow.  Certainly  during  the  r.f.  style  the  painter  of  a vase  had 
probably  nothing  to  do  with  the  actual  shaping  of  it. 

It  is  now  perfectly  apparent  in  the  case  of  an  artist  like 
Euphronios  who  uses  both  formulae  that  the  vases  which  bear  the 
eTToiTjaev  formula  were  painted  by  a different  hand  or  hands  from 
those  signed  with  eypa\pev.  All  the  vases  from  the  workshop  of 
Hieron  bear  his  name  with  eiroiriaev  incised  or  painted  on  the 
handles  and  one,  the  celebrated  Spinelli  kotyle  in  Boston  (F.  R. 
ii,  pi.  75)  bears  in  addition  the  signature  of  the  painter  Makron; 
almost  all  the  Hieron  vases  were  probably  painted  by  Makron. 
Consequently  we  may  conclude  with  reasonable  safety  that  the 
various  artists  began  their  careers  by  acting  as  painters  in 
the  workshops  of  well-established  potters  (Euphronios,  for 
instance,  worked  for  the  potter  Chachrylion)  and  later  set  up 
their  own  workshops  and  employed  subordinates  in  their  turn. 

If  one  may  draw  any  conclusions  from  medieval  or  modern 
workshops  the  ateliers  of  such  men  as  Euphronios  or  Hieron  can 
hardly  have  been  composed  of  only  a workman  or  two.  Consider- 
ing the  number  of  vases  in  existence  today  which  by  the  actual 
signature  or  style  clearly  belong  to  a certain  workshop,  and  in 
view  also  of  the  fact  that  they  must  have  been  only  a small 
fraction  of  the  entire  output  of  such  a workshop,  a fairly  large 
number  of  assistants  is  demanded.  In  one  of  the  important 
Athenian  vase- factories  there  were  probably  several  workmen 
who  shaped  the  clay  into  the  actual  vessel;  others  who  filled 
in  the  background  with  the  black  glaze  after  the  designs  had 
been  made;  some  again  who  added  such  details  as  the  in- 
scriptions and  wreaths,  while  the  important  and  best-paid  work- 
ers, the  painters  of  the  vases,  spent  their  entire  time  in 
decorating,  and  left  the  more  or  less  unskilled  work  to  sub- 
ordinates. If  we  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  the 
actual  drawing  on  the  signed  vases  is  seldom  faulty,  while 
innumerable  mistakes  occur  in  the  inscriptions  or  the  filling  in 
of  the  background,  this  supposition  is  by  no  means  fanciful. 


28 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Secondly,  the  use  of  the  formula  eypaxpev  alone  may  or  may 
not  indicate  that  the  artist  who  uses  it  was  actually  the  pro- 
prietor of  an  atelier.  Douris  always  signs  his  name  with  this 
formula  and,  as  we  know,  worked  for  the  potters  Kleophrades, 
Kalliades,  and  Python.  On  the  other  hand  as  he  uses  both  formu- 
lae in  the  case  of  the  Brussels  kantharos  (F.  R.  ii,  pi.  74)  we  know 
that  he  was  the  master  of  his  own  workshop  so  that  in  all  prob- 
ability all  the  vases  signed  by  him  as  painter  came  from  his  own 
factory.  In  the  case  of  Euthymides,  to  be  sure,  we  have  no 
vases  signed  with  any  but  the  eypaypev  formula  and  as  we  shall 
see  later  there  is  some  evidence  to  show  that  he  worked  for 
Phintias;  strictly  speaking,  therefore,  we  have  actually  no  evi- 
dence that  he  was  ever  the  proprietor  of  an  atelier.  But  we  have 
only  five  vases  signed  by  him,  and  of  the  thirty-odd  Douris  signa- 
tures, only  one  uses  the  eToirjaev  formula.  Consequently  a vase 
with  Euthymides’  signature  as  potter  may  possibly  appear  some 
day  to  establish  this  point.  In  view  of  his  very  strong  personality 
in  vase-painting  it  would  be  strange  if  he  had  not  had  an  inde- 
pendent factory,  and  this  will  be  the  assumption  throughout  the 
present  volume. 

But  if  the  problem  of  the  significance  of  the  potters’  and  artists’ 
signatures  is  difficult,  far  more  so  is  the  question  why  all  vases 
which  obviously  come  from  a certain  factory  do  not  bear  either  a 
signature  or  the  trade-mark  of  the  factory.  No  satisfactory 
answer  to  this  question  has  ever  been  forthcoming  ^ and  with  our 
present  information  it  is  doubtful  whether  a satisfactory  answer 
ever  will  be.  It  is  certainly  curious  that  there  should  exist  so 
many  vases  which  are  unmistakably  the  handiwork  of  certain 
artists  but  unsigned  — such  vases  being  often  of  better  execution 
than  many  vases  with  a signature.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  decide  when 
attributing  a series  of  unsigned  vases  to  any  master  just  at  what 
point  to  draw  the  line.  Some  vases  strike  the  eye  at  once  as  so 
similar  in  style  to  signed  vases  that  one  may  safely  assign  them 

1 Pettier  {Louvre  Cat.  iii,  p,  700)  has  suggested  that  only  those  vases  in  the 
manufacture  of  which  the  head  of  the  workshop  had  actively  been  concerned,  bore 
the  signature  and  that  a signed  vase  represented  a sort  of  “ first  edition  ” as  it  were. 
Miss  Harrison  (/.  H.  S.  1888,  p.  145)  thinks  it  possible  that  the  artist  may  have 
signed  a vase  to  increase  the  price. 


THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 


29 


not  only  to  the  workshop  but  often  to  the  actual  hand  of  the 
artist  himself,  as  I have  done  with  the  Munich  amphora  on  which 
the  rape  of  Helene  by  Theseus  is  represented  (E  III).  Others 
again  bear  a general  resemblance  in  certain  details  only  and  are 
often  of  too  inferior  execution  to  justify  their  attribution  to  the 
actual  hand  of  any  given  artist  though  they  may  show  most  of 
the  characteristics  of  his  style  and  hence  be  termed  school- 
pieces.”  Furthermore,  all  scholars  do  not  see  stylistic  details  in 
the  same  way  and  there  often  exists  the  widest  difference  of 
opinion  in  the  attribution  of  any  given  vase,  which  is  frequently 
assigned  to  no  less  than  four  different  artists  by  as  many  scholars. 
Even  the  opinion  of  the  individual  scholar  may  change  and  the 
cases  are  innumerable  where  a scholar  has  assigned  a certain  vase 
to  a certain  master  and  then  a few  years  later  attributed  it  to  an 
entirely  different  artist.  The  late  Professor  Furtwangler  was  a 
notable  offender  in  this  respect. 

For  the  sake  of  convenience  we  may  tabulate  the  five  existing 
signatures  of  Euthymides. 


E I Munich  2307 

E II  Munich  2308 

EIV  Turin 

E V Bonn 
E VI  Adria 


A.  eypaxpeu  l^Wupldris  6 HoXiov. 

B.  COS'  ovdeirore  Eu^poi^ios. 

A.  6 HoXiov  eypaxpev  ^vdvpLLdrisr]s  (sic!). 

B.  Kv6upLdr]s  6 HoXtou. 

A.  EWvpL8r]s  eypaxpev  6 HoXtou  evye  valx^. 

B.  Eu0upt577s  eypa\p€v  6 HXtou  (sic!). 
Ev6[vpLdr]s]  eypacfye. 

F,vdvp.i[8r]s]  eypacfye. 


From  these  signatures  the  following  conclusions  seem  permis- 
sible. 

He  is,  with  one  exception,^  the  only  artist  of  the  period  who 
gives  us  the  name  of  his  father.  This  habit,  common  enough  at 
the  time  of  the  Kleinmeister  ” group  some  years  before  (e.  g., 
Eucheiros,  son  of  Ergotimos:  Ergoteles  and  Tleson,  sons  of 


1 Hieron,  son  of  Medon.  This  signature  occurs  on  the  kantharos  in  the  Boston 
Museum  (Poliak,  Zwei  Vasen  aus  d.  Werkstalt  Hieron's,  p.  28,  pi,  4),  It  should  be 
stated,  however,  that  the  authenticity  of  this  signature  has  been  questioned.  If 
the  reading  of  the  inscription  on  the  Kleophrades  kylix  in  the  Cabinet  des 
Medailles  be  correct  (no.  535)  we  should  have  another,  Kleophrades  the  son  of 
Amasis. 


30 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Nearchos)  had  died  out  after  the  introduction  of  the  r.f.  style. 
As  Euthymides  employs  this  formula  in  all  three  signatures 
which,  as  shown  by  the  aorist,  belong  to  his  later  period,  it  was 
probably  his  usual  manner  of  signing.  In  all  probability  it  indi- 
cates that  he  was  a free  Athenian  citizen  (cf.  Pettier,  Douris, 
p.  19)  and  is  thus  significant. 

He  is  a contemporary  and  rival  of  Euphronios,  and  in  all  likeli- 
hood his  activity  lay  in  Athens. 

He  is  extremely  proud  of  his  work  and  misses  no  opportunity 
to  inform  the  public  of  its  quality  — a curious  and  interesting 
example  of  the  ancient  idea  of  advertising. 

His  use  of  the  imperfect  form  of  the  verb  (E  V and  VI)  shows 
that  part  of  his  activity  certainly  lay  in  the  Epiktetan  cycle. 

Since  we  have  two  instances  of  a mistake  in  the  signature  (E  II 
and  IV),  two  cases  of  senseless  inscriptions  (E  I and  II)  and  an 
obvious  error  in  the  application  of  the  names  of  Korone  and 
Helene  (E  HI),  Pottier’s  suggestion  {Louvre  Cat.  hi,  p.  696)  that 
the  inscriptions  may  have  been  added  by  the  subordinate  work- 
men and  not  by  the  artists  themselves,  seems  reasonable. 

{b)  Use  oe  /caXos  Names 

Strictly  speaking,  a discussion  of  koXos  names  ought  to  include 
those  only  which  are  preceded  or  followed  by  the  word  /caXos, 
but  as  a certain  amount  of  laxity  always  existed  in  the  use  of 
the  formula  it  seems  advisable  to  include  all  the  names  which 
occur  on  vases  signed  by  Euthymides  (omitting,  however,  purely 
mythological  or  heroic  names  like  Hector,  Priam,  Theseus,  etc.), 
whether  they  are  followed  by  koKos  or  not.  The  following  names 
are  used  by  him. 

I . Smikythos  (E  V) . This  name  also  occurs  on  P i (attrib- 
uted to  Phintias:  v.  p.  114).  It  occurs  further  on  a b.f.  kyathos 
in  Cambridge,  England,  formerly  in  the  Forman  collection  ^ 
together  with  the  names  of  Skythes  and  Philon,  and  on  a psykter 
in  New  York  (Met.  Mus.  10. 210. 18)  in  the  style  of  Smikros. 
Beazley  attributes  this  last  to  Oltos. 

^ Klein,  LI.  p.  117,  No.  2;  Hartwig,  p.  525,  note  i;  Cecil  Smith,  Cat.  Forman 
Sale,  p.  45,  No.  280;  Rizzo,  Mon.  Piot,  1913,  p.  116. 


THE  STYT.E  OF  EUTHYMIDES 


31 


2.  Megakles  (E  V:  E 19).  This  name  also  occurs  on  P IV, 
which  bears  the  signature  of  Phintias  {v.  p.  105).  If  there  exists 
any  reason  for  believing  that  koXos  names  do  refer  to  prominent 
individuals  in  Athens  ^ then  we  have  in  Megakles  most  probably, 
the  son  of  Hippokrates,  uncle  of  Perikles  and  grandfather  of 
Alkibiades,  ostracised  in  487  b.c.  (Aristotle,  Ath.  Pol.,  xviii:  cf. 
also  a sherd,  which  was  part  of  a vase  cut  round  with  the  name 
incised,  published  by  Benndorf,  GriecJi.  u.  Sicil.  Vasenh.,  pi.  xxix, 
10,  p.  50). 

3.  Phayllos  (E  II  and  IV).  In  addition  the  name  occurs  on 
E 3 and  P 6.  It  does  not  seem  too  daring  to  follow  Hauser’s 
suggestion  {Jhh.  1895,  p.  no)  that  we  have  here  the  celebrated 
athlete  Phayllos  of  Kroton,  holder  of  the  world’s  record  of  fifty- 
five  feet  in  the  long  jump ! ^ and  commander  of  a ship  at  the 
battle  of  Salamis  which  he  furnished  at  his  own  expense.  This 
identification  is  warmly  supported  by  Furtwangler  and  was  ques- 
tioned by  me  in  my  earlier  essay  on  entirely  insufficient  grounds. 

4.  Olympiodoros.  The  use  of  this  name,  of  course,  rests 
entirely  on  the  assumption  that  my  reading  of  the  inscription  on 
E IV  is  correct.  If  such  is  the  case  and  the  identity  of  Megakles 
and  Phayllos  be  admitted,  then  we  are  certainly  justified  in 
recognizing  here  the  son  of  Lampon  and  most  probably  the  father 
of  Lampon,  co-founder  of  Thurii  (Thuc.  v,  19,  24),  soothsayer 
and  friend  of  Perikles.  This  Olympiodoros,  as  Herodotus  tells  us 
(ix,  21),  with  three  hundred  Athenian  troops,  defended  a danger- 
ous corner  at  the  outpost  of  Erythrae  just  before  the  battle  of 
Plataea  at  which  skirmish  Masistios  was  slain  {v.  Busolt,  GriecJu 
Gesch.  ii,  p.  727).  The  date  of  this  vase  certainly  coincides  with 
the  youth  of  Olympiodoros  if  he  was  a general  at  Plataea.  In 
addition  the  name  occurs  on  the  following : 

B.f.  hydria,  Rome,  Vatican  (No.  7843,  Mus.  Greg,  ii,  xiv,  2 b; 
Klein,  LI.  p.  70,  No.  i)  in  company  with  that  of  Leagros. 

^ For  discussion  of  this  point  cf.  Hauser,  F.R.  iii,  p.  274,  note:  338. 

^ This  very  extraordinary  performance  has  rightly  been  questioned  as  physi- 
cally impossible  even  with  the  aid  of  halteres.  It  rests  on  a rhetorical  epigram  and 
a doubtful  reading  in  Africanus.  Cf.  Gardiner,  J.II.S.  1904,  pp.  70  ff.,  also 
Greek  Athletic  Sports,  p.  309. 


32 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


R.f.  kylix,  Paris,  Cab.  d.  Med.  (No.  523,  Ca/.,  p.  391;  Klein, 
LI.  p.  105;  Hartwig,  p.  132).  Owing  to  restoration  the  names 
have  almost  entirely  disappeared  but  the  name  originally  existed 
on  the  vase  together  with  that  of  Antias.  This  last  occurs  with 
that  of  Leagros  on  E 9 {v.  p.  73).  Further  on  a b.f.  lekythos 
formerly  in  Lord  Guilford’s  collection  (Klein,  LI.  p.  71,  No.  6), 
the  name  of  Chares  which  we  shall  find  on  P 3 and  4 {v.  p.  120) 
occurs  together  with  those  of  Antias  and  Leagros. 

We  thus  get  the  triple  combination  of  Olympiodoros-Leagros, 
Olympiodoros-Antias  and  Antias-Leagros.  To  these  names  I shall 
return  later  in  the  discussion  of  Euthymides’  probable  activity 
during  the  b.f.  style. 

We  have,  therefore,  six  names  fitly  to  be  included  under  the 
head  of  Ka\bs  names  which  are  more  or  less  common  property 
during  the  r.f.  style;  of  these  three  are  certainly  used  by  Euthy- 
mides, the  fourth  possibly  so  while  the  two  last  are  dependent  on 
the  correctness  of  our  attributions.  All  the  other  names  are  those 
given  to  various  figures  and  do  not  strictly  speaking  belong  to  the 
class  just  discussed.  The  following  list  includes  those  names  only 
which  are  to  be  found  on  the  signed  vases ; those  on  the  attributed 
vases  will  be  discussed  later. 


Euthyboulos  (E  II) 

cf.  Hauser,  Jhb.  1895,  p.  in. 

Pentathlos 

(E  II) 

Thorykion 

(E  II) 

Orsimenes 

(E  II) 

Komarchos 

(E  I) 

also  occurs  on  a kylix  in  possession  of  A.Cas- 
tellani,  Rome.  Klein,  LI.  p.  67,  No.  3. 

Eledemos 

(E  I) 

cf.  Hauser,  loc.  cit. 

Teles 

(E  I) 

also  occurs  on  b.f.  hydria  in  Madrid,  v.  p.  39. 

Heres 

(E  III) 

{c)  Euthymides’  Relation  to  the  Other  Artists  of 
THE  Period 

From  what  has  just  been  said  we  see  three  facts  clearly:  that 
Euthymides  is  the  rival  and  contemporary  of  Euphronios,  that 
part  of  his  activity  lies  in  the  Epiktetan  cycle,  and  that  he  uses 
the  same  /caXos  names  as  Phintias.  Further,  since  there  exists 
the  greatest  similarity  between  his  work  and  that  of  Phintias 


THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 


33 


(even  today  the  same  vases  are  frequently  spoken  of  as  style  of 
Euthymides  ” or  style  of  Phintias  ”)  the  natural  inference  is 
that  they  were  very  intimately  associated  together  if  not  actu- 
ally partners  in  the  same  workshop.  We  have  no  signature  of 
Euthymides  except  as  painter  but  we  know  that  Phintias,  as  we 
see  from  P I,  painted  for  the  potter  Deiniades  and  that  later  he 
must  have  set  up  for  himself,  like  Euphronios,  since  we  have  the 
Athens  kylix  (E  13)  signed  by  him  as  potter.^  Although  we  have 
no  vase  signed  by  Phintias  and  Euthymides  together  there  is 
nothing  to  contradict  the  assumption  of  their  partnership  and  all 
the  evidence  at  our  disposal  is  certainly  in  favor  of  such  a theory. 
It  is  true  that  while  we  have  numerous  cases  of  potter  and  painter 
signing  the  same  vase  we  have  no  instance  of  two  painters  signing 
together.  In  the  b.f.  style  we  have  instances  of  two  potters  sign- 
ing the  same  vase,  Nikosthenes  and  Anakles,  Archikles  and  Glau- 
kytes,  each  using  the  formula  eTTOL7]aep.  Now  in  point  of  time 
none  of  these  artists  is  far  removed  from  Euthymides  and  Phin- 
tias, and  certainly  in  the  b.f.  style  the  formula  e7roLr]aep  included 
the  painting  of  the  vase  as  well.  A b.f.  kylix  in  Berlin  (Cal.  No. 
1801:  Klein,  p.  75,  No.  i:  Morin-Jean,  Rev.  Arch.  1915,  p.  12, 
fig.  6,  who  publishes  another  kylix  signed  by  Anakles  alone)  has 
the  same  subject  (Herakles  and  the  Hydra)  on  both  sides  and  is 
signed  by  Nikosthenes  and  Anakles  as  potters  on  separate  sides 
respectively,  the  side  on  which  the  signature  of  Anakles  occurs, 
being,  according  to  Furtwangler  “ im  Detail  noch  etwas  sauberer 
und  feiner.”  There  can  hardly  be  any  question  that  each  potter 
was  responsible  for  the  painting  of  one  side  and  if  this  is  so  there 
is  certainly  no  valid  reason  why  two  painters  in  the  r.f.  style 
should  not  have  worked  on  the  same  vase.  Instances  of  kylixes 
on  which  the  painting  is  generally  attributed  to  two  different 
hands  are  by  no  means  rare.  An  excellent  example  is  the  Pam- 
phaios  kylix  in  the  British  Museum  (Cal.  hi,  p.  47,  E 12)  on  which 
part  of  the  exterior  (A)  is  commonly  assigned  to  Euphronios;  it 
is  fairly  certain  that  the  interior  and  exterior  were  not  painted  by 
the  same  hand. 

^ We  have  another  signature  of  Phintias  as  potter  in  P VI  (v.  p.  109),  but  this 
has  no  painted  decoration  at  all. 


34 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


This  theory  of  the  partnership  of  Euthymides  and  Phintias  was 
advanced  by  me  twenty  years  ago  but  on  purely  theoretical 
grounds.  Subsequent  discoveries  have  done  much  to  strengthen 
this  view,  since  we  now  have  definite  evidence  of  the  intimate 
connection  existing  between  two  artists.  For  example  the  painter 
Skythes^  uses  the  ko\6s  name  Epilykos,  while  the  painter  Epily- 
kos  uses  the  koKos  name  Skythes.^  Rizzo  has  clearly  shown  that 
the  various  vases  with  the  formula  ’EttiXu/cos  koXos  are  certainly, 
Furtwangler  notwithstanding  (v.  F.  R.  ii,  p.  182),  to  be  assigned 
to  the  hand  of  Skythes  and  that  furthermore  there  exists  an 
intimate  relation  in  the  styles  of  both  Skythes  and  Epilykos. 
That  by  any  possibility  other  individuals  than  these  two  artists 
are  meant  by  the  names  is  absurd,  and  I,  for  one,  regard  Rizzo’s 
statement  as  thoroughly  convincing,  that  mutual  expressions  of 
regard  took  place  among  the  potters  and  painters.^ 

We  have  not,  unfortunately,  any  signed  vase  by  either  Phintias 
or  Euthymides  bearing  any  reference  to  the  other,  complimentary 
or  otherwise.  But  the  existence  of  the  celebrated  phrase  cos 
ovdeiroTe  EvcfypovLos  on  E I proves  definitely  that  Euthymides 
referred  to  contemporary  artists  in  terms  which  were  certainly 
not  complimentary,  and  also  constitutes  a negative  proof  of  the 
connection  existing  between  Phintias  and  himself  since  one  can- 
not but  wonder  why,  if  there  existed  side  by  side  two  artists  of 
such  similar  characteristics  and  skill,  but  rivals  and  not  partners 

1 V.  Rizzo’s  admirable  article  in  the  Mon.  Piot,  1913,  pp.  101-153,  pis.  vi-viii; 
cf.  also  Pottier,  Mon.  Piot,  ix,  pp.  135-178,  pis.  xi-xv;  x,  pp.  49  ff.  Rizzo’s 
entire  position  with  regard  to  Epilykos  has  lately  been  questioned  by  Buschor 
{Jlth.  1915,  pp.  36-40)  who  considers  that  no  Epilykos  signature  has  yet  been 
proved.  Rizzo,  however,  seems  to  me  to  have  established  the  existence  of  the 
Skythes-Epilykos  group  and  I do  not  regard  the  arguments  advanced  by  Buschor 
for  the  existence  of  Epilykos  merely  as  a /caXos  name  as  convincing.  Buschor 
further  denies  that  any  potter’s  name  ever  figured  with  the  /caXos  formula. 

On  the  other  hand  Rodenwaldt  {Arch.  Anz.  1914,  p.  87)  considers  Rizzo’s  reading 
of  the  inscription  on  the  Berlin  fragment  [ZtKvdrjs]  eypa\J/ev  as  most  probably  correct. 

2 Rizzo,  loc.  cit.  p.  122.  It  must  be  frankly  admitted  that  it  is  possible  to  read 
the  inscriptions  on  the  Louvre  fragments  as  ’EttiXu/cos  /caXos  hKvdrjs  ’iypaxpev  instead 
of  the  other  way.  In  view  of  the  style,  however,  and  the  similarity  to  the  other 
work  of  Epilykos,  Rizzo’s  reading  of  the  inscription  seems  infinitely  more  probable. 

^ Cf.  also  Pottier’s  suggestion  for  the  explanation  of  koXos,  loc.  cit.  pp.  168  ff.; 
also  Rizzo,  loc.  cit.  pp.  146  ff. 


THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 


35 


(it  must  have  been  one  thing  or  the  other),  Euthymides  should 
have  gone  out  of  his  way  to  make  insulting  remarks  about  the 
work  of  Euphronios  when  a more  dangerous  competitor  was 
nearer  to  hand  with  whose  work  his  own  might  easily  be  confused. 
One  would  certainly  have  expected  cis  ovdewore  ^Lprlas. 

On  the  basis  of  attributed  work,  however,  we  get  a fair  amount 
of  reasonably  convincing  evidence,  if  we  may  anticipate  a little 
at  this  point.  It  is  certainly  significant  that  the  two  hydriae 
in  Munich  and  the  Louvre  (P  i and  3),  which  Furtwangler, 
Walters,  Hauser,  and  Hartwig  unite  in  assigning  to  Phintias  ^ 
should  bear  on  the  one  the  inscription  (joirevbe  Eu^u/xtSet  as  well 
as  the  name  of  Euthymides,  and  on  the  other  the  formula 
^vdvp.ibris  The  use  of  the  name  in  a signature 

without  the  verb  is  extremely  rare  ^ and  in  the  case  of  these  two 
hydriae  we  cannot  by  any  possibility  consider  the  name  of 
Euthymides  as  a signature.^  Like  the  dedication  on  the  Euphron- 
ios psykter  in  Petrograd  (F.R.  ii,  pi.  63)  we  have  here  a clear  dedi- 
cation to  Euthymides.  It  is  surely  not  a difficult  supposition 
that  the  artist  is  meant  and  that  his  friend  and  associate  is  the 
painter  of  the  vase. 

The  vases  just  discussed  represent  the  relation  of  Phintias  to 
Euthymides;  to  make  the  theory  of  their  association  complete 
we  must  seek  for  some  evidence  to  show  that  Euthymides  uses 
some  similar  formula  with  reference  to  Phintias. 

Hartwig  {Meistersch.  pp.  183  ff.)  publishes  three  kylixes  in 
Athens,  Leipzig,  and  Berlin  which  he  assigns  to  Phintias.  The 
three  are  undoubtedly  by  the  same  painter  but  for  reasons  which 

^ Aside  from  questions  of  style  the  attribution  of  both  vases  is  made  almost 
positive  from  the  fact  that  they,  together  with  P IV  and  2 all  come  from  Vulci  and 
all  have  the  same  graffiti  on  the  foot;  v.  p.  106. 

2 The  following  instances  of  the  name  only  in  the  signature  are  known  to  me: 

Two  kylixes  by  Psiax,  one  in  Munich  (No.  1240  (Jahn),  A.  J.  A.  1895,  p.  485) 
the  other  in  New  York  (Bidl,  Metrop.  Mus.  May,  1915). 

Torlonia  hydria  of  Hypsis;  v.  p.  138. 

Kylix  by  Chachrylion  in  Palermo  (Klein,  p.  129,  No,  13;  Hartwig,  p.  19,  pi.  i). 

^ It  might  be  urged  that  the  name  Smikros  is  to  be  found  on  the  Brussels  stamnos 
{Mon.  Plot  ix,  pis.  2.  3.)  as  that  of  one  of  the  revellers,  but  the  vase  bears  in  addition 
the  signature  of  Smikros  himself,  so  that  no  room  is  left  for  doubt  as  to  the  author- 
ship of  the  vase. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


36 

I shall  state  later  (v.  p.  81,  E 13,  14,  15),  the  three,  in  my 
opinion,  are  certainly  not  by  Phintias,  but  in  all  probability  by 
Euthymides.  The  Leipzig  kylix  has  a fragmentary  inscription, 
but  even  if  this  be  restored  successfully  it  only  gives  the  usual 
formula  6 wals  koXos  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  point  under 
discussion.  The  Athens  kylix  bears  the  signature  ^Lprlas  eiroLrjcev 
while  the  Berlin  kylix  has  the  formula  ^Lprias  /ca[X6s]. 

Now  leaving  aside  for  the  moment  the  question  whether  these 
vases  were  actually  painted  by  Euthymides,  there  are  good  rea- 
sons for  assuming  that  they  were  not  by  Phintias.  Apart  from 
the  style  of  the  three,  the  inscriptions,  to  my  mind,  forbid  such 
attribution.  The  use  of  eTrolrjaev  of  course,  at  this  time  says 
nothing  for  the  painting  of  the  kylix,  but  the  use  of  the  /caXos 
formula  would  seem  to  make  it  impossible  that  Phintias  was  their 
author.  If,  as  remarked  above,  it  was  not  usual  for  artists  to 
sign  their  work  without  the  verb  no  more  did  they  use  the  koXos 
formula  as  a signature.  In  two  vases  signed  Epiktetos  ko\6s 
(Klein,  p.  102,  7:  LI.  p.  5)  and  Nikosthenes  koXos  (ibid.  pp.  50, 
66)  it  is  believed  that  koXoos  should  be  read;  vases  with  the 
inscription  Epilykos  koXos  are,  as  Rizzo  has  shown  (loc.  cit.)  in  all 
probability  the  work  of  Skythes.  These  represent  the  only  cases 
out  of  some  hundreds  of  signatures  so  that  we  are  certainly  justi- 
fied in  considering  that  when  we  meet  with  a vase  which  bears  the 
formula  6 5e2vo  koXos  the  balance  of  probability  is  against  its 
having  been  actually  painted  by  the  artist  who  is  described  as 
KoXos  on  it.  Since  the  style  of  the  three  is  that  of  Euthymides, 
the  natural  inference  is  that  at  the  time  Phintias  became  the 
proprietor  of  a workshop,  Euthymides  worked  for  him  as  a 
painter. 

In  view  of  all  these  facts  the  intimate  association  of  Phintias 
and  Euthymides  would  seem  to  be  established  on  reasonably  sure 
foundations. 

Similarity  of  style  is  our  only  reason  for  including  Hypsis 
and  Kleophrades  in  the  cycle.  The  signed  work  of  the  former  is 
remarkably  like  that  of  Phintias  (in  fact  the  British  Museum 
amphora  E 253  which  we  shall  attribute  to  Hypsis  is  described  in 
the  catalogue  as  ‘‘  style  of  Phintias  ”)•  The  Kleophrades  painter 


THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 


37 


shows  an  extraordinary  resemblance  to  Euthymides  and  may  well 
have  been  actually  a pupil  of  his.  The  development  of  their 
work  will  be  discussed  more  in  detail  later. 

The  question  here  arises  whether  the  four  artists  considered  in 
this  work  possessed  any  connection  with  the  b.f.  style  and 
worked  in  that  technique.  That  they  did  do  so  is  more  than 
probable  considering  that  they  were  the  contemporaries  of  such 
artists  as  Epiktetos,  Skythes,  and  others  who,  as  we  know, 
painted  in  that  style.  Unfortunately  we  have  no  vase  of  either 
the  b.f.  or  dual  technique  signed  by  them  and  consequently  to 
assign  any  b.f.  vase  to  their  hands  is  almost  impossible. 

One  fact  must  be  admitted  at  the  outset,  namely  the  very 
striking  similarity  which  exists  between  their  work  and  that  of 
the  group  surrounding  Andokides.^  As  a painter  the  latter  is 
probably  a classical  Mrs.  Harris  ” and  it  is  now,  I think,  pretty 
generally  agreed  that  he  was  the  proprietor  of  a workshop  and 
employed  a number  of  different  painters.  There  is  altogether  too 
much  divergence  of  style  among  the  various  vases  with  his  signa- 
ture to  regard  them  as  the  work  of  one  hand  and  we  have  definite 
evidence  that  at  least  one  vase  formerly  attributed  to  him  is  by 
another  hand.  For  many  years  the  amphora  published  by  Noel 
des  Vergers  (E/mHc,  pi.  9;  Norton,  loc.  cit.,  p.  9)  was  universally 
regarded  as  an  unsigned  specimen  of  his  work  and  this  same 
amphora  after  various  wanderings  having  come  at  last  to  rest  in 
the  museum  of  Philadelphia,  proved,  after  cleaning,  to  be  signed 
on  the  foot  eirolriaev^  As  the  amphora  is  only  signed  with 

the  eTroL7]aev  formula  we  know  nothing  of  the  identity  of  the 
painter  who  may  have  been  the  same  as  the  author  of  some  of 
the  other  vases  signed  by  Andokides;  possibly  Menon  may  have 
been  the  artist.  It  all  depends  whether  we  consider  e-woLrjaep 
as  used  here,  as  it  certainly  was  in  the  b.f.  style,  to  denote 
the  painter  of  the  vase  as  well  as  the  proprietor  of  the  atelier 
which  produced  it,  or,  as  in  the  r.f.  style,  the  proprietor  of  the 
workshop  only. 

^ For  the  literature  concerning  this  master  v.  Norton,  A.J.A.  1896,  pp.  iff.; 
F,  R.  i,  p.  15,  note  2;  ii,  p.  267,  note  i. 

2 Published  by  Bates,  A.J.A.  1905,  p.  170;  cf.  also  Hauser,  F.  R.  iii,  p.  76, 


38 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


General  similarities  are  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  four 
artists  use  the  same  shaped  amphora,  the  same  palmette  borders 
or  some  kindred  motive  for  their  pictures,  employ  a limited  num- 
ber of  figures  with  a tendency  to  mythological  or  heroic  subjects, 
and  display  the  same  spirit  for  harmony  and  symmetry  in  the 
treatment  of  their  compositions.  One  may  call  attention  to  the 
very  striking  similarity  between  the  central  group  of  wrestlers  on 
the  Berlin  amphora  signed  by  Andokides  (No.  2159,  F.R.  hi,  pi. 
i33j  PP-  73“76)  and  that  of  Theseus  and  Kerkyon  on  E IV,  while 
the  right-hand  group  distinctly  suggests  Theseus  and  Korone  on 
E III.  The  Rape  of  the  Tripod  on  the  Andokides  amphora  is 
treated  in  similar  fashion  on  P II.  Further,  the  figures  on  the  r.f. 
side  of  the  Madrid  amphora  No.  63  also  signed  by  Andokides, 
suggest  distinctly  the  style  of  Euthymides,  the  chief  difference 
being  in  the  proportion  of  the  heads  which  are  nearer  i : 6i  than 
the  proportion  which  Euthymides  always  uses,  1:7. 

On  the  rim  of  an  amphora  in  Munich  (No.  2305:  Jahn,  41 1) 
attributed  by  Hartwig  and  Beazley  to  the  Kleophrades  painter 
(/.  H.  S.  1910,  p.  42,  No.  5;  K 2 in  the  list  assigned  to  that 
master  on  p.  155  of  this  work)  and  on  a loutrophoros  in  the 
Louvre  (also  assigned  by  Beazley  to  Kleophrades,  No.  35  in  his 
list  onp.  67  of  his  article)  is  a b.f.  frieze  almost  identical  in  both 
cases.  Further,  on  the  cover  of  K 2 is  another  b.f.  frieze  very 
similar  to  the  b.f.  frieze  on  the  cover  of  E 4.  The  figures  are  too 
small  in  each  case  to  draw  any  satisfactory  conclusions  as  to 
stylistic  details  but  the  fact  that  this  decoration  is  in  the  b.f. 
technique  certainly  supports  the  theory  expressed  above  that  the 
four  masters  were  active  in  the  last  stages  of  the  b.f.  style. 

Significant,  too,  is  the  inscrip tional  evidence.  The  names  of 
Olympiodoros,  Leagros,  and  Antias  already  discussed  and  assigned 
to  Euthymides  with  considerable  probability  and  those  of  Chai- 
rias  (P  III)  and  Chares  (P  4),  the  former  certainly  and  the  latter 
probably  used  by  Phintias,  all  occur  on  a series  of  b.f.  hydriae 
(Klein,  LI.  p.  70)  which  bear  some  general  resemblance  to  the 
style  of  Phintias;  in  fact  one  of  the  number,  a fragmentary  hydria 
in  Berlin  (No.  1909,  Hartwig,  p.  193,  fig.  27;  Klein,  LI.  p.  88, 
No.  i)  is  definitely  attributed  to  Phintias  by  Hartwig. 


THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 


39 


The  name  of  Smikythos  (E  V,  P i)  is  to  be  found  on  a b.f. 
kyathos  together  with  those  of  Skythes  and  Philon,  {v.  p.  30). 

The  name  of  Teles  (E  I)  occurs  in  one  other  instance,  on  a b.f. 
hydria  in  Madrid  {Cat.,  No.  68,  pp.  43-46,  pi.  xi;  Klein,  LI. 
p.  41,  figs.  1-2),  used  with  /caXos.  In  addition  there  is  a certain 
general  similarity  between  the  figure  of  the  Scythian  at  the  left 
of  the  group  and  that  of  Priam  on  the  obverse  of  E I. 

The  fact  that  the  father  of  Kleophrades  was  probably  the  b.f. 
master  Amasis  gives  us  another  link  in  the  chain  binding  the  four 
artists  to  that  period. 

We  have  not,  unfortunately,  any  /caXos  name  used  by  the  same 
master  in  both  the  b.  and  r.f.  techniques.  The  following  table 
gives  the  rather  limited  number  of  /caXos  names  which  are  to  be 
found  in  the  b.f.  and  r.f.  styles.  The  names  of  the  masters  in 
whose  signed  work  they  are  to  be  found  are  placed  after  them 
in  brackets. 

1.  Antias  [Smikros]. 

2.  Chairias  [Phintias]. 

3.  Chares. 

4.  Dorotheos. 

5.  Hipparchos  [Epiktetos]. 

6.  Leagros  [Euphronios  and  Chachrylion]. 

7.  Olympiodoros  [Euthymides  ?]. 

8.  Pedieus. 

9.  Philon. 

10.  Smikythos  [Euthymides]. 

11.  Skythes  [Epilykos]. 

12.  Teles  [Euthymides]. 

Of  these  i,  2,  4-1 1 are  followed  by  koKos  in  both  the  b.  and  r.f. 
techniques:  3 occurs  in  both  without  /caXos  (it  is  doubtful 
whether  koKos  on  a b.f.  lekythos,  Klein,  LI.  p.  71,6  does  not 
refer  to  Leagros) : 12  occurs  with  Ka\bs  in  the  b.f.  but  without  it 
in  the  r.f.  style. 

In  addition  the  name  Hippokrates  occurs  in  the  b.f.  style  and 
in  the  mixed  technique:  the  name  Memnon  occurs  on  vases  of 
the  mixed  and  r.f.  techniques.  None  of  the  masters  mentioned 


40 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


have  left  any  signed  work  in  the  hi.  style.  Epiktetos  and  Chelis 
only  have  left  signatures  on  vases  of  the  mixed  as  well  as  the  r.f. 
technique.  The  others  have  signed  r.f.  vases  only. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Euthymides  certainly  worked  dur- 
ing the  Epiktetan  cycle  and  probably  possessed  some  connection 
with  the  b.f.  period.  Such  names  as  he  uses  belong  to  the  older 
group,  but  as  Eurtwangler  has  remarked  (E.R.  ii,  p.  in)  that 
since  Phayllos  was  at  Salamis  (and  Olympiodoros  at  Plataea)  if 
the  names  do  refer  to  those  individuals,  it  will  not  do  to  place  the 
use  of  their  names  too  far  away  from  the  Persian  Wars.  Also  the 
style  of  the  later  signed  vases  can  hardly  be  much  later  than 
500-490  B.c.  Owing  to  the  lack  of  stylistic  progression  in  his 
work  Eurtwangler  was  disposed  (E.R.  i,  p.  63)  to  think  that 
Euthymides  could  not  have  had  a very  long  career  and  probably 
died  young.  Certainly  such  vases  as  can  be  attributed  to  him 
with  any  degree  of  safety  are  not  later  than  490  b.c.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  we  regard  the  Kleophrades  painter  as  Euthymides 
himself  in  his  later  stage  and  trace  his  development  as  Hauser  ^ 
and  Beazley^  have  done  in  a series  of  vases  ending  with  the 
Vivenzio  vase  (E.R.  i,  pi.  34),  we  should  have  an  activity  for 
him  extending  as  far  as  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.  I do  not 
agree  with  these  scholars  in  their  development  of  Euthymides’ 
style  and  prefer  to  abide  by  the  older  view  which  sees  the  end  of 
his  activities  shortly  before  the  Persian  Wars. 

id)  Style  and  Technical  Details 

We  have  for  the  purposes  of  study  five  examples  of  Euthymides’ 
work.  In  addition  we  have  the  Munich  amphora  (E  III)  which 
though  lacking  the  signature  is  so  universally  regarded  as  painted 
by  him  that  for  stylistic  detail  it  may  be  treated  as  if  it  actually 
possessed  the  signature.  The  Bocchi  plate  (E  VI)  has  now  dis- 
appeared and  was  so  fragmentary  as  to  be  almost  worthless,  while 
the  Bonn  kalpis  (E  V)  is  badly  defaced  by  fire  and  of  little  value 
for  details.  Practically  then,  there  remain  to  us  four  vases,  the 
three  Munich  amphorae  (one  unsigned)  and  the  Turin  psykter, 
and  all  conclusions  as  to  the  style  of  Euthymides  must  be  built 
1 F.  R.  ii,  p.  228.  “ J.  II.  S.  1910,  pp.  38-68. 


THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 


41 


on  the  foundation  of  these  four  vases.  The  fact  that  Euthymides 
duplicated  the  figure  of  the  youth  arming  himself  (E  I and  II)  is 
important  since  it  will  assist  the  identification  of  unsigned  vases 
if  on  them  we  find  figures  recurring  which  already  occur  on  signed 
vases. 

The  period  in  which  Euthymides  painted  had  still  enough 
connection  with  the  b.f.  style  to  be  extremely  stereotyped  and 
conventional  and  not  until  the  time  of  Euphronios  does  any 
great  degree  of  individuality  make  itself  felt  in  the  work  of  the 
different  artists.  Consequently  it  is  no  easy  task  to  establish 
definitely  what  his  style  was  or  detect  the  exact  details  which 
distinguish  him  from  his  contemporaries.  I propose  to  analyze 
the  manner  in  which  all  his  figures  are  painted. 

It  should  be  noted  that  Euthymides  adheres  to  the  same  scale 
of  proportion  for  all  his  figures  with  hardly  any  exceptions.  That 
is,  his  figures  all  have  heads  that  are  one-seventh  the  height  of  the 
body  or  a little  less.^  This  holds  true  in  the  case  of  twenty-four  out 
of  twenty-five  figures  on  five  different  vases.  We  may  regard  this 
then  as  his  invariable  canon  and  since  in  his  work  we  find  no  case 
of  any  figure  with  a head  in  the  proportion  of  1:6^  we  may  con- 
sider ourselves  justified  in  rejecting  any  attribution  which  shows 
such  a proportion.  Moreover  I have  yet  to  find  that  any  vase 
painted  by  any  artist  shows  such  difference  in  the  scale  of  the 
figures  on  the  same  vase.^  Therefore,  if  we  find  that  the  figures 
on  one  side  of  a vase  are  in  the  proportion  of  i : 7 and  those  on  the 
other  1:6^  1 consider  myself  justified  in  refusing  to  attribute  to 
Euthymides  the  figures  showing  the  larger  scale.  The  difference 
is  important  as  an  aid  to  distinguishing  the  work  of  Euthymides 
from  that  of  the  Kleophrades  painter  as  the  figures  of  the  latter 
are  almost  invariably  1:6^. 

I.  Hair.  The  hair  is  treated  as  a solid  mass  with  a wavy 
incised  outline,  the  only  exceptions  being  the  figures  on  E V on 
which  the  hair  outline,  so  Professor  Loeschcke  informs  me,  is 

^ The  figure  of  Priam  on  E I has  a head  which  is  a trifle  over  1:7. 

2 Occasionally  the  figures  of  Herakles  on  r.f.  vases  show  a slightly  different  pro- 
portion from  the  other  figures  on  the  same  vase,  but  such  cases  must  be  reckoned 
as  special  and  do  not  affect  the  general  principle. 


42 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


reserved  and  not  incised.  We  find  no  case  of  ‘‘  Buckellockchen 
on  any  signed  vase. 

In  the  male  figures  the  hair  may  be  close-cropped,  or  in  flowing 
ringlets  and  long  at  the  back  or  ending  at  the  back  in  a krobylos. 
Priam  on  E I is  represented  as  slightly  bald. 

The  female  figures  wear  the  hair  either  plain  or  in  ringlets, 
with  the  addition  of  a scarf  or  a saccos.  Sometimes  a stephane 
is  added. 

Practically  all  the  figures  have  their  hair  in  a small  bunch 
over  the  forehead  the  outline  of  which  may  be  either  incised  or 
reserved. 

2.  Eyebrows.  The  eyebrows  are  treated  by  a single  relief  line 
in  all  the  figures. 

3.  Eyes.  The  eyes  are  almond-shape.  The  pupils,  which  are 
set  rather  forward  of  the  center  are  either  indicated  by  a black 
dot  or  a circle  with  dot.  Theseus  on  E III  has  eyelashes  in  faint 
lines.  Occasionally  the  lids  do  not  meet  at  the  inner  corner.  In 
general,  however,  the  Euthymidean  eye  shows  little  variance 
from  the  usual  archaic  form. 

4.  Nose.  The  nose  is  long,  slightly  retrousse  and  sometimes 
square  at  the  end.  The  nostrils  are  indicated  by  a slightly  curved 
line,  sometimes  in  relief,  sometimes  faint,  and  are  far  better  pro- 
portioned than  those  on  the  figures  of  Phintias  which  are  too 
small.  The  cheeks  are  indicated  by  a curved  faint  line. 

5.  Mouth.  The  mouth  is  marked  by  a single  relief  line  or  else 
the  lips  are  indicated  by  faint  lines.  The  moustache  does  not 
cover  the  entire  lip,  the  center  being  left  bare. 

6.  Chin.  The  chin  is  rounded  and  firm  but  never  prognathous. 
Occasionally  a suspicion  of  a double-chin  is  seen  (Hekabe  on  E I, 
Korone  on  E III). 

7.  Ears.  It  is  difficult  to  speak  of  the  Euthymidean  ears  for 
there  exists  a considerable  amount  of  variety  in  the  way  in  which 
they  are  represented.  As  a rule  they  are  set  too  high  and  at  an 
angle  so  that  the  lobe  projects  forward.  One  characteristic  fea- 
ture is  the  way  in  which  the  two  lines  which  form  the  curve  of  the 
inner  ear  meet  in  a point,  viz.  V 


THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 


43 


8.  Beards.  The  beards  are  long,  almost  Van  Dyck  in  char- 
acter, black  (except  that  of  Priam  on  E I which  is  stippled),  with 
a serrated  edge  and  the  outline  reserved.  They  have  a tendency 
to  curl  at  the  ends.  Whiskers  in  faint  lines  are  occasionally 
given  to  the  youthful  figures  (Hektor  on  E I,  left-hand  youth  on 
E II,  and  Theseus  on  E III). 

9.  Neck.  The  necks  are  rather  thick  and  the  muscles  are  indi- 
cated by  two  faint  lines  (sometimes  more)  which  start  from  just 
below  the  ear  and  radiate  outwards,  forming  the  angle  of  a 
triangle.  This  is  precisely  the  reverse  of  the  method  employed 
by  Phintias  since  the  necklines  in  the  figures  of  the  latter  start 
from  the  collar  bones  and  diverge  upwards. 

10.  Torso.  The  anatomical  details  of  the  torso  are  indicated 
by  a combination  of  relief  and  faint  lines.  The  collar  bones 
are  invariably  in  faint  lines  with  a sharply  defined  hook  and 
separated. 

The  chest  is  always  drawn  in  relief  lines  and  is  rendered  either 
as  a broad  curve  without  any  indication  of  the  sternum  (left-hand 
youth  on  the  reverse  of  E II),  or  by  two  curved  lines  outlining 
the  base  of  the  breast  which  meet  the  sternum  at  a right  angle 
(Theseus  and  Perithous  on  E III),  or,  the  most  common  form, 
where  the  sternum  is  a continuation  of  one  of  the  breast  lines. 
The  nipples  are  either  a dot  (trainer  on  E II  and  both  figures  on 
E V)  or  a dot  in  a dotted  circle  (all  the  figures  on  E IV,  reverse  of 
I,  and  Theseus  and  Perithous  on  E III).  In  the  female  figures  the 
breasts  are  prominent  with  projecting  nipples.  The  ribs  are 
indicated  by  faint  lines. 

The  anatomy  of  the  abdominal  muscles  is  indicated  by  a quad- 
ruple division  of  rectangles  with  rounded  corners  sometimes 
almost  like  the  letter  O (Olympiodoros  on  E IV).  The  linea  alba 
and  the  iliac  furrow  are  always  in  relief  lines. ^ The  navel  is  indi- 
cated by  faint  lines. 

Hair  is  indicated  on  the  pubes  of  Kerkyon  (E  IV),  the  right- 
hand  figure  of  the  reverse  of  E II  and  Theseus  and  Perithous 

^ At  least  when  the  figure  is  seen  full  front.  The  figure  of  Olympiodoros  on  E IV 
is  broken  at  this  point  and  it  cannot  be  stated  definitely  whether  the  linea  alba 
was  in  relief  or  not. 


44 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


(E  III).  One  of  the  most  absolutely  characteristic  touches  is 
that  the  scrotum,  when  seen  full  front,  has  a triple  division.  So 
far  as  I know,  Euthymides  is  the  only  master  at  this  time  to 
employ  such  a detail.  We  find  it  at  a later  date  in  the  work  of 
Beazley’s  Master  of  the  Berlin  Amphora  (J.H.S.  igii,  p.  281, 
No.  13,  pi.  vi)  and  on  an  amphora  in  the  British  Museum  (E  266, 
bearded  komast  on  obverse). 

When  the  figures  are  seen  from  the  back  the  spine  is  marked 
by  a relief  line  (Phayllos  on  E IV,  central  komast  on  reverse 
of  El). 

11.  Arms.  The  arms  are  extremely  well  formed  and  the 
muscles  very  carefully  delineated  in  faint  lines  with  considerable 
knowledge  of  the  anatomy.  The  deltoid  muscle  is  formed  by  a 
curved  line  (when  the  figure  is  seen  from  the  back  a relief  line  is 
employed),  the  biceps  and  triceps  are  marked  by  the  arcs  of  two 
circles  which  touch  at  their  centers.  In  the  central  komast  on 
the  reverse  of  E I the  trapezoid  is  clearly  marked  by  two  lines. 
The  muscle  of  the  forearm  is  denoted  by  a circular  relief  line  with 
several  straight  lines  running  towards  the  wrist.  Equally  careful 
is  the  drawing  of  the  hands.  The  fingers  have  a tendency  to  curl 
at  the  ends  and  except  for  the  suggestion  of  a nail  on  the  fore- 
finger of  Priam  on  E I there  is  no  trace  of  finger-nails.  Only  on 
the  right  hand  of  Priam  and  the  middle  komast  on  the  reverse  of 
E I do  we  find  any  indication  of  knuckles. 

12.  Legs.  Equally  well  drawn  are  the  legs  of  all  Euthymides’ 
figures.  In  the  drawing  of  the  thigh  the  depression  between  the 
rectus  and  tensor  muscles  is  marked  by  two  faint  lines  which 
form  a sort  of  diamond.  This  may  either  be  placed  alone  on  the 
thigh  or  continued  in  a straight  line  down  the  length  of  the  upper 
leg  (as  in  the  left-hand  komast  on  the  reverse  of  E I),  in  exactly 
the  same  manner  as  on  the  vases  signed  byEuphronios  as  painter; 
(cf.  for  example  the  figures  on  the  Antaios  krater,  F.R.  ii,  pi.  92). 
In  the  figure  of  Perithous  on  E III  we  see  the  vastus,  biceps,  and 
crural  muscles  carefully  drawn.  The  calf  muscle  is  indicated  by  a 
circular  line  as  in  the  case  of  the  deltoids.  The  ankles  are  usually 
not  marked  at  all  or  else  the  straight  line  which  occasionally  runs 
the  length  of  the  lower  leg  to  mark  the  Achilles  tendon  takes  a 


THE  STYLE  OF  EUTHYMIDES 


45 


turn  at  the  ankle  and  is  paralleled  by  a short  curved  line  at  the 
ankle  bone.  The  frontal  knee  is  usually  indicated  by  a relief  line 
which  runs  the  length  of  the  leg  and  ends  at  the  knee  in  a 
sharpened  ovoid. 

13.  Feet.  The  feet  are  almost  invariably  too  long  and  the 
sole  quite  fiat.  The  toes  have  a tendency  to  curl  up  at  the  ends 
and  the  big  toe  stands  out  from  the  others  at  a different  angle. 
With  the  exception  of  the  right  foot  of  Theseus  on  E III  there 
is  no  attempt  to  represent  toe-nails  and  the  big  toe  is  almost 
always  separated  from  the  ball  of  the  foot  by  a small  line.  On 
the  right  foot  of  Theseus  is  an  attempt  to  indicate  the  veins. 
The  toes  when  seen  full  front  are  drawn  as  a series  of  small 
ovals. 

14.  Drapery.  The  difference  between  the  upper  garment  and 
the  cloaks  is  usually  indicated  by  a series  of  thin,  crinkly,  parallel, 
faint  lines  for  the  chitons  and  faint  lines  radiating  outwards  from 
a central  point  in  the  mantles.  This  constitutes  one  of  the  most 
characteristic  features  of  Euthymides’  style.  The  borders  of  the 
cloaks  are  generally  in  a series  of  two  parallel  relief  lines  not  con- 
tinuous and  the  ends  hang  in  a point  provided  with  a small  tassel. 
The  chitons  are  Ionic  and  the  necks  are  bordered  by  two  parallel 
relief  lines.  The  outlines  of  the  body  show  through  the  drapery. 

15.  Wreaths  and  Fillets.  We  have  three  classes  of  the 
former. 

(a)  Laurel  wreath 

(b)  Vine  wreath 

(c)  Flower  wreath 

Of  the  latter  we  have  also  three  classes. 

(a)  Plain  band 

(b)  Triple  fillet  in  applied  purple 

(c)  Scarf  fillet 

Each  form  of  wreath  or  fillet  can  be  duplicated  in  the  work  of 
almost  all  the  masters  of  the  period. 

16.  Decorative  Borders.  None  of  the  borders  employed 
by  Euthymides  differ  in  any  way  from  those  current  in  the  b.f. 
style  or  in  the  work  of  contemporary  artists.  For  the  table 
V.  pp.  7-10. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  VASES  ATTRIBUTED  TO  EUTHYMIDES 

In  my  original  essay  I attributed  to  Euthymides  a total  of  ten^ 
vases,  and  to  this  list  I now  add  another  ten.  I have  already 
included  one  of  the  unsigned  vases  (E  III  = Munich  2309)  in 
the  list  of  his  signed  work  so  that  we  have  now  to  consider  nine- 
teen works  which  bear  no  signature. 

All  of  these  unfortunately  are  not  so  unmistakably  marked  with 
his  individuality  as  to  make  their  attribution  beyond  question;  in 
fact  very  few  of  them  may  be  said  to  be  universally  accepted  as 
E III  is  accepted.  There  is  hardly  one  in  the  list  which  does 
not  show  some  slight  departure  from  Euthymides’  peculiarities 
as  far  as  we  know  them  from  his  signed  work.  Some  of  them 
seem  to  be  inferior  to  the  signed  work  and  though  most  probably 
the  product  of  his  workshop  are  better  designated  perhaps  as 
“ school-pieces.” 

The  vases  are  divided  into  the  following  forms : six  amphorae, 
one  psykter,  one  krater,  two  kalpis-hydriae,  two  pelikae,  three 
kylixes,  one  plate,  half  of  a large  wall  pinax  and  two  fragments. 

The  first  three  amphorae  are  in  the  British  Museum  and  seem 
to  be  companion  pieces.  Except  for  the  variation  in  height  they 
are  of  the  same  shape  as  the  signed  amphorae  and  have  the  usual 
decoration,  palmettos  under  the  grooved,  ivied  handles,  ray  pat- 
tern on  base  and  purple  stripes  around  various  parts.  All  were 
found  at  Vulci  and  formed  a part  of  the  Canino  collection.  The 
technical  descriptions  which  follow  have  been  borrowed  in  the 
main  from  the  Catalogue  (vol.  iii,  by  Sir  Cecil  Smith). 

^ Strictly  speaking  the  number  is  only  nine  as  the  Acropolis  pinax  can  hardly  be 
classed  as  a vase. 


46 


Plate  VII 


British  Museum  E 254  (E  i) 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES  47 

E I.  [PL  VII]:  Amphora,  British  Museum,  E 254.  Old 
number  792:  h.m.  0.634. 

British  Museum,  Cat.  iii,  p.  192. 

Klein,  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1881,  p.  81. 

Hartwig,  p.  168. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  21,  III,  pis.  iii  and  iv. 

A.  Departure  of  Warrior.  In  the  center  a young  warrior 
with  long  hair  looped  up  with  a fillet,  whiskers,  helmet  on  top  of 
head  tilted  back,  short  chiton,  cuirass,  greaves,  and  shield  (device, 
a snake  arching  to  1.  in  silhouette),  and  sword  in  a scabbard  with 
belt,  holding  a spear  upright  in  his  r.,  stands  to  1.  facing  a bearded 
archer  in  Phrygian  costume,  holding  Scythian  bow  in  1.  and  battle- 
axe  (sagaris)  in  r.,  who  looks  down  as  if  in  grief:  he  wears  anaxy- 
rides  and  a jerkin  of  skin  indicated  by  small  brown  circles,  boots 
reaching  above  the  ankle,  and  a high,  curved  kidaris : at  his  side 
hangs  a large  quiver  and  bow-case.  The  shield  of  the  warrior  is 
disproportionately  large  and  is  held  away  to  r.  so  that  the  front 
part  of  his  body  is  visible.  On  the  r.  a bearded  man,  bald  over 
the  wrinkled  forehead,  stands  leaning  on  a staff,  closely  wrapped 
in  his  himation,  from  which  his  1.  hand  emerges:  with  a finger  and 
thumb  of  his  r.  he  holds  his  nose,  looking  down  in  a reflective  atti- 
tude: he  wears  a fillet  and  his  mantle  passes  high  around  the 
back  of  his  head.  At  his  feet  a large  hound  of  mastiff  breed 
crouches,  looking  up  at  him.  In  the  field  imitation  inscriptions, 
the  letters  very  clearly  written. 

B.  Kitharist  and  two  Epheboi.  In  the  center  a youth, 
wreathed,  with  hair  falling  in  wavy  locks  to  his  shoulders,  long 
Ionic  chiton  and  mantle,  walks  to  r.,  with  head  thrown  back, 
playing  on  a kithara  held  against  his  1.  shoulder:  the  kithara  is 
supported  by  a looped  ribbon  around  his  1.  wrist:  from  the  lower 
part  hangs  a spotted  sash.  On  each  side  stands  a youth  wreathed 
and  draped,  holding  a knobbed  staff.  The  one  on  the  r.  has  his 
mantle  passed  over  the  back  of  his  head  and  his  1.  arm:  his  1. 
hand  beneath  it  is  drawn  in  spiral  form.  In  the  field  are  imita- 
tion inscriptions.  The  kitharist  alone  of  the  three  is  without  hair 
on  his  cheek. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


48 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  fillets,  bow-string,  sword- 
belt,  dog-collar,  wreaths,  cord  of  plectrum  and  tuning-pegs  of 
lyre.  Faint  lines  for  anatomical  details,  hair  on  cheeks,  and  folds 
of  himatia.  Outline  of  hair  incised  and  edged  with  raised  black 
dots.  Carelessness  is  responsible  for  the  fact  that  the  lyre  has 
only  six  strings  and  five  where  it  joins  the  frame.  Especially 
characteristic  is  the  form  of  the  head  throughout,  particularly  in 
the  case  of  the  old  man  on  A which  is  very  long  in  proportion  to 
its  width.  The  lyre  projects  into  the  upper  border. 

Borders.  Lower,  A 4 (a).  Sides,  B 3 (b).  Upper,  B i (c).  The 
clay  is  rather  more  greenish  in  tone  than  in  the  other  two  am- 
phorae. 

E 2.  [PI.  VIII]:  Amphora,  British  Museum,  E 255.  Old 

number  793:  h.  m.  0.813. 

British  Museum,  Cat.  hi,  p.  192. 

Archaeologia,  23,  p.  209. 

Gerhard,  Rapp.  Vole.  p.  182,  No.  735. 

Alls.  Vas.  ii,  p.  147,  note  17  c. 

Ann.  deW  Inst.  1830,  p.  208;  Klein,  ibid.  1881,  p.  81. 

Overbeck,  Kunstmyth.  (Apollo),  p.  402,  No.  13. 

Corey,  Amaz.  Ant.  Fig.  p.  91. 

Hartwig,  pp.  168  and  191. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  29,  IV,  pis.  v,  vi. 

C.  I.  G.  7620;  cf.  Muller  in  Comment.  Soc.  Gotting.  vii,  p.  loi. 

A.  Contest  for  the  Tripod.  In  the  center  Herakles,  bearded, 
with  fillet,  moves  to  1.,  holding  the  tripod  by  one  leg  in  his  1.  and 
brandishing  his  club  over  his  head:  he  turns,  with  his  body 
en  face,  to  strike  Apollo,  who  follows,  grasping  the  same  leg  of  the 
tripod  higher  up  with  his  1.  hand.  With  his  r.  Apollo  seems  about 
to  draw  an  arrow  from  the  quiver  hanging  at  his  1.  side:  he  is 
beardless  and  wears  his  long  hair  looped  up  with  a fillet.  Between 
his  legs  Af'-'uVON.  Behind  him  comes  Artemis,  in  long  chiton, 
mantle  and  twisted  saccos  ornamented  with  crosses,  and  a steph- 
ane:  she  extends  her  r.  arm  towards  the  combatants  and  with  her 
1.  draws  an  arrow  from  the  quiver  on  her  1.  shoulder.  Beside  her 
(separated  by  her  1.  arm)  APTEMI^.  Behind  Herakles,  Athena 
stands  looking  on,  holding  in  her  1.  her  helmet,  in  her  r.,  horizon- 
tally a spear : she  wears  a long  chiton,  a mantle,  and  a large,  scaly 


Plate  VIII 


British  Museum  E 255  (E  2) 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


49 


aegis  with  lower  fringe  of  snakes  drawn  in  silhouette  and  her  hair 
is  arranged  like  that  of  Apollo:  beside  her  A0ENAA  (for  this  form 
V.  Kretschmer,  Vasenins,  p.  127,  note  5).  Between  the  legs  of 
Herakles  AE+IOI:  to  the  1.  PAVO^d  The  quiver  of  Artemis  is 
decorated  with  a dotted,  lozenge-shaped  pattern:  that  of  Apollo 
with  a scale  pattern:  each  contains  five  arrows. 

B.  Warrior’s  Departure.  Almost  a duplicate  of  the  obverse 
of  the  previous  vase.  The  old  man  is  wreathed  and  has  his 
mantle  over  the  back  of  his  head,  but  his  chest  bare.  The  warrior 
with  his  r.  grasps  the  nasal  of  his  helmet  and  seems  to  be  drawing 
it  forward  over  the  face:  he  has  a sword  at  his  side  and  his  shield 
has  for  device  a large  crab  in  silhouette.  At  his  feet  crouches  a 
small  dog  with  its  tail  between  its  legs,  which  turns  its  head  to 
look  up  at  a Scythian  warrior  who  is  beardless  but  otherwise 
corresponds  to  the  similar  figure  on  E i A : his  dress  has  for  pat- 
tern a series  of  marks  like  button-holes.  In  the  field,  imitation 
inscriptions,  clearly  written. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  fillets,  belt,  bowstring,  and 
wreath.  Faint  lines  for  anatomical  details,  hair  on  cheek,  and 
folds  of  drapery.  Outline  of  hair  incised  with  edging  of  black 
dots.  Eye  of  Herakles  has  a fringe  of  eyelashes  in  faint  brown. 

Borders.  Obverse,  lower,  A 4 (c);  sides,  A 9;  upper,  A 5 (u). 
Reverse,  lower  and  upper  the  same;  sides,  A4(/)  on  r.  side, 
A 4 if)  on  the  1.  This  variation  in  the  pattern  on  the  same  side 
of  a vase  is  most  unusual. 

E 3.  [PI.  IX]:  Amphora,  British  Museum,  E 256.  Old 

number  709:  h.  m.  0.709. 

British  Museum,  Cat.  hi,  pi.  x (A),  p.  193.  J.H.S.  1907,  pi.  19  (B), 

Gerhard,  Aus.  Vas.  i,  p.  90,  note  78. 

Klein,  Ann.  delV  Inst.  1881,  p.  81. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  30,  IV,  pi.  vii. 

Wernicke,  p.  74,  note  i. 

Hartwig,  p.  168;  C.  I.  G.  7423. 

Kretschmer,  p.  79,  note  5. 

Gardiner,  Greek  Ath.  S ports j p.  348,  fig.  97  (reverse). 

^ Gerhard  reads  the  inscription  Ae$t67raXos  and  C.  I.  G.  gives  koXSs 

but  the  letters  are  perfectly  clear. 


50 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


A.  Apollo,  Artemis,  and  Leto.  Apollo,  beardless,  in  long 
woolen  chiton-’and-hirhation,  long  hair  looped  up  behind  with' 
fillet,  slight  whiskers,  stands  to  r.  playing  on  a large  kithara 
which  projects  into  the  upper  border:  beside  him,  in  the  back- 
ground his  deer  moves  to  1.  The  kithara  is  supported  by  a looped 
ribbon,  through  which  his  1.  wrist  is  passed,  and  from  the  lower 
part  of  it  hangs  a spotted  sash.  Facing  him  Artemis  stands, 
similarly  dressed,  with  earrings,  bracelets,  and  necklace  with 
three  pendants,  and  a heavy  twisted  saccos  with  stephane: 
around  her  shoulders  is  fastened  a panther-skin,  its  mask  on  her 
1.  upper  arm,  and  over  this  her  quiver  (with  conical  cap)  hangs 
by  a belt  around  her  shoulders:  with  her  1.  she  raises  the  skirt  of 
her  dress,  touching  her  r.  shoulder  with  the  finger-tips  of  her  r. 
hand.  Beside  her  in  the  background  a panther  to  1.  regardant. 
On  the  1.  Leto,  wearing  a long  chiton  and  himation,  stands  to  r., 
holding  up  in  her  1.  a honeysuckle  flower  in  front  of  her  face:  in 
her  r.  at  her  side  a leafless,  forked  twig.  To  the  r.  of  Apollo 
ATOVVONO^. 

B.  Three  Athletes  Exercising.  The  central  figure  is  in  the 
act  of  hurling  the  akontion:  he  moves  to  r.  with  his  body  en  face, 
looking  down  to  1.  at  the  javelin  which  he  holds  in  his  r.  with 
the  first  two  fingers  extended  (the  amentum  is  omitted) : with  the 
fingers  of  his  1.  he  steadies  the  tip.  On  the  r.  a boxer  moves  to  r., 
looking  back,  in  the  act  of  fastening  around  his  1.  a cestus  of  which 
the  end  hangs  down  to  the  ground  between  his  feet.  The  third 
figure  on  the  1.,  a discobolus,  moves  away  to  1.  with  the  discus 
poised  on  his  1.  hand  and  shoulder:  he  looks  back,  raising  his  r. 
with  a gesture  of  surprise.  To  the  r.  of  the  central  figure  VAAA- 
MA^,  to  the  1.  4»AVVVQ^  (retrograde).  Above  him  KAVO^  separ- 
ated by  his  head. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  fillets,  flower,  cross-belt  of 
Artemis,  cord  of  plectrum,  tuning-pegs,  bracelets,  and  cestus;  faint 
lines  for  the  anatomical  details,  folds  of  drapery,  whiskers,  and 
necklaces.  The  skirts  of  the  chitons  and  Apollo’s  himation  have 
the  fold  indicated  by  both  faint  and  relief  lines.  Outline  of  hair 
and  strings  of  lyre  incised  and  along  outer  edge  of  hair  a row  of 
raised  black  dots.  F eet  very  long  and  extremely  carelessly  drawn, 
especially  those  of  Apollo. 


Plate  IX 


British  Museum  E 256  (E  3) 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES  5 1 

The  borders  are  the  same  on  both  sides:  below,  AS  (a):  at  sides, 
A 9:  above,  A 4 (d). 

That  four  out  of  six  pictures  on  the  vases  just  described  are  by 
the  same  hand  is  quite  obvious.  E i ^ is  practically  a duplicate 
oiE  2 B and  E i ^ is  so  like  E 3 A as  far  as  the  figures  of  Apollo 
and  the  kitharist  are  concerned  that  there  need  be  no  hesitation 
in  assigning  them  to  the  same  artist.  In  accordance  with  the 
method  we  have  been  following  in  differentiating  the  style  of 
Euthymides  we  find  the  following  of  his  characteristics  repeated 
on  these  vases. 

The  heads  are  in  the  proportion  of  i : 7.  The  hair  is  incised  in 
its  outline  and  the  ringlets  of  the  Scythian  on  E 2 ^ are  similar 
to  those  of  E II  A.  Apollo’s  hair  on  E 3 A has  a krobylos  at  the 
back  like  that  of  Perithous  on  E III  A . The  heads  of  the  old  men 
except  for  their  extreme  length  (a  peculiarity  we  do  not  meet  with 
in  the  signed  vases)  suggest  that  of  Priam  on  E I A . The  eyes 
are  common  to  Euthymides  and  several  other  masters;  the 
ears  are  his,  so  are  the  profiles,  rounded  chins,  and  beards.  He 
uses  the  same  laurel  wreaths  and  fillets. 

In  the  anatomical  details  we  find  the  two  lines  representing 
the  neck  muscles  spreading  outwards  and  downwards,  the  same 
arrangement  of  the  sternum  (except  the  collar  bone  on  E i and  2 
is  in  relief,  not  faint  lines)  and  the  same  protruding  breast  with 
its  prominent  nipple.  The  fingers  have  the  same  tendency  to  curl 
at  the  ends  with  no  sign  of  a nail  on  either  fingers  or  toes.  There 
is,  however,  a suggestion  of  knuckles  on  the  r.  hand  of  the  Scy- 
thian on  the  reverse  of  E 2.  Also  the  ankles  are  indicated  in  faint 
lines.  Perhaps  the  most  striking  Euthymidean  feature  is  the  use 
of  the  faint  line  for  the  details  of  the  drapery,  either  crinkly  lines 
for  the  thinner  material  or  wavy  lines  starting  from  the  same 
central  point  for  the  heavier  garments;  this  we  have  seen  was 
peculiar  to  Euthymides  and  to  no  one  else.  The  himatia  are  high 
in  the  neck  and  the  ends  hang  in  the  characteristic  fashion.  The 
Scythians  are  like  those  on  E II  and  the  one  on  E 2 has  the  same 
button-hole  pattern  on  his  dress.  The  shields  have  their  designs 
in  silhouette.  Also  the  symmetrical  grouping  of  the  figures  is 
certainly  Euthymidean. 


52 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


A few  more  points  may  be  noted.  The  youth  on  E i ^ has 
his  hand  in  a curious  spiral  faintly  suggested  by  the  1.  hand  of  the 
bearded  figure  on  E i A . This  same  peculiarity  is  repeated  on  a 
kylix  in  the  British  Museum  with  the  name  of  Epidromos  (E  25, 
assigned  by  Hartwig  to  Chachrylion,  Meistersch.  pi.  hi,  pp.  44,  46- 
47)  which  strangely  enough  repeats  the  crouching  attitude  of  the 
youthful  warrior  on  E 13  and  P 6,  as  well  as  on  an  amphora  (E 
261:  Gerhard,  Aus.  Vas.  273).  The  dog  we  meet  with  for  the 
first  time  but  he  will  be  found  recurring  frequently.  He  seems  to 
belong  to  the  class  of  dogs  used  for  hunting,  commonly  found  on 
vases  of  the  period  (cf.  Daremberg-Saglio,/)fcL  Aw/.  arL  “ Canis^\ 
p.  882;  also  Aus.  Vas.  276,  290),  and  whose  cousins  the  Lacedae- 
monian hounds  enjoyed  a high  reputation  among  the  ancients. 

On  the  reverse  of  E 2 we  meet  the  dog  again,  but  this  time  a 
smaller  variety.  The  motive  of  adjusting  the  helmet  is  strikingly 
like  that  of  the  E 13.  It  is  also  significant  that  while  we  meet  with 
inscriptions  on  the  obverse  that  make  sense,  those  on  the  reverse 
should  be  senseless  — another  argument  in  favor  of  its  having 
been  painted  by  a different  hand. 

The  obverse  of  E 3 introduces  three  new  divinities  in  Euthy- 
mides’  work,  Apollo,  Artemis,  and  Leto;  the  two  last  very  like 
the  figure  of  Antiopea  on  E III  B.  Evidently  the  artist  regarded 
the  designation  of  Apollo  by  an  inscription  as  a sufficient  guide 
to  the  identity  of  his  mother  and  sister.  Two  new  animals,  the 
deer  and  the  panther,  are  introduced,  the  former  as  an  attri- 
bute of  Apollo  (cf.  Aus.  Vas.  198),  the  latter  of  Artemis  though 
this  is  not  common.  Usually  we  meet  the  panther  on  b.f.  vases 
with  Dionysos  or  Athena,  in  the  Bacchic  sense,  but  here  it  would 
seem  intended  to  emphasize  Artemis  as  the  goddess  of  the  chase. 
One  may  remark  how  curious  it  is  that  the  artists  at  this  period, 
who  had  attained  a fair  degree  of  skill  in  the  foreshortening  of 
the  human  figure,  failed  entirely  when  they  tried  to  treat  animals 
in  similar  fashion.  The  honeysuckle,  if  such  it  be,  carried  by 
Leto  is  exactly  like  the  flower  wreaths  worn  by  the  figures  of 
E III.  On  the  whole  the  groups  offer  little  of  interest. 

But  when  we  come  to  consider  the  obverse  of  E 2 and  the 
reverse  of  E 3 the  question  is  more  complex.  The  general  con- 


Plate  X 


British  Museum  E 254  (E  i) 


British  Museum  E 255  (E  2) 


DETAILS  OF  HEADS 


Plate  XI 


British  Museum  E 256  (E  3) 


British  Museum  E 253  (Hi) 


DETAILS  OF  HEADS 


' --A 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


S3 


sensus  of  opinion  has  assigned  the  obverse  of  E 2 to  Phintias, 
which  opinion  I follow.  It  is  most  certainly  not  by  the  same  hand 
as  the  reverse.  I shall  postpone  the  discussion  of  the  details  of 
this  side  until  the  chapter  on  Phintias,  when  the  differences 
between  it  and  the  reverse,  and  the  salient  features  of  Phintias’ 
style  which  it  shows  will  be  commented  on  at  length. 

The  reverse  of  E 3 I have  assigned  to  Euthymides  in  my  pre- 
vious essay,  basing  my  reasons  on  the  similarity  with  the  figures 
on  E I jB,  with  Theseus  on  E III,  and  the  pose  of  the  heads  of 
Hector  and  Thorykion  on  E I yl  and  TLA.  The  anatomical 
details  are  treated  as  in  the  work  of  Euthymides;  the  hair,  eyes, 
ears,  frontal  knee,  curved  fingers  and  absence  of  finger-  and  toe- 
nails are  the  same,  and  the  proportion  of  the  heads  is  1:7.  Also 
the  name  Phayllos  is  twice  used  by  Euthymides.  Against  this 
it  must  be  admitted  that  we  have  no  suggestion  of  the  triple 
division  of  the  scrotum  nor  have  we  met  with  any  such  use  of 
a rudimentary  “ Buckellockchen  ” in  any  signed  vase. 

Hauser  remarks  that  it  is  strange  the  dissimilarity  in  style 
between  the  two  sides  should  have  escaped  my  notice  (F.  R.  ii, 
p.  223).  I admit  that  there  is  a difference  in  the  style  of  the  two 
sides,  but  I confess  frankly  my  inability  to  see  anything  more 
than  a general  variation  of  treatment  which  does  not  preclude 
both  sides  belonging  to  the  same  hand.  But  we  may  note  that 
in  the  case  of  E 2,  in  addition  to  the  radical  differences  of  style, 
we  had  sensible  inscriptions  on  the  obverse  and  senseless  on 
the  reverse,  whereas  here  the  inscriptions  on  both  sides  have 
sense. 

At  first  sight  there  does  appear  to  be  a strong  resemblance 
between  this  side  and  K 2 = Munich  2305.  If  the  two  be  closely 
compared,  however,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  resemblance  is  more 
apparent  than  real,  and  consists  largely  in  the  use  of  an  athletic 
scene  on  both,  the  position  of  the  figures  and  the  triangular  form 
of  the  pubes.  The  proportion  of  the  figures  on  E 3 is  different 
from  those  on  K 2,  the  ears  are  not  the  same,  nor  are  the  collar 
bones,  hands,  and  frontal  knee.  The  heel  seen  from  behind  is 
treated  in  a very  different  fashion  from  that  of  Kleophrades. 
Also  we  have  here  the  koXos  formula  coupled  with  two  names. 


S4 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


while  on  K 2 we  have  the  simple  /caXos  which,  as  we  shall  see,  is 
very  characteristic  of  Kleophrades. 

Therefore  I feel  disposed  to  assign  the  obverse  definitely  and  the 
reverse  probably  to  the  hand  of  Euthymides,  though  as  remarked 
before,  the  possibility  exists  that  the  actual  painting  of  it  may 
have  been  done  by  a pupil.  The  use  of  the  name  Phayllos 
has  already  been  discussed  at  some  length;  that  of  Ladamas  ^ 
occurs  here  for  the  first  time  on  any  vase. 

E 4.  [PI.  XII]:  Amphora,  Wurzburg,  No.  300:  h.  m.  0.637; 

h.  of  cover,  m.  0.115.  Erom  Vulci. 

Urlichs,  Verz.  der  Antikensamm.  iii,  p.  61;  cover,  No.  222. 

Gerhard,  Aus.  Vas.  267  = Reinach,  Rep.  ii,  133. 

F.R.  ii,  pp.  222-226,  pi.  103  (Hauser). 

Daremberg-Saglio,  Diet,  ii,  297. 

Campanari,  Vasi  Feoli,  n.  99. 

Ann.  d.  Inst.  1843,  P-  219.  (Roulez  gives  here  the  correct  interpre- 
tation of  the  object  held  in  the  warrior’s  hand.) 

Ann.  d.  Inst.  1863,  p.  238  (De  Witte). 

Hartwig,  p.  413.  Per.  et  Chip,  x,  p.  597,  fig.  339. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  21,  No.  II,  and  p.  32, 

Robert  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  v,  1513. 

Beazley,  J,  H.  S.  1910,  p.  40,  No.  2. 

A.  Warrior’s  Departure.  In  the  center  to  1.  a youthful 
warrior  clad  in  a short  chiton  and  cuirass,  greaves,  a Corinthian 
helmet  on  his  head  and  a sword  at  his  r.  side  fastened  by  a sash 
around  his  shoulder.  In  his  1.  he  holds  his  spear  and  in  his  r. 
the  entrails  of  the  sacrificial  victim.  He  has  faint  whiskers 
on  his  cheek.  In  front  of  him  to  r.  a nude  boy  with  a vine  wreath 
in  his  hair,  holding  in  both  hands  a cushion  from  which  the 
entrails  have  been  taken.  Behind  the  boy  a bearded  man  in  Scy- 
thian dress,  the  usual  combination  of  kidaris,  anaxyrides,  jerkin 
(ornamented  with  stripes)  and  shoes.  His  1.  is  raised  in  a gesture 
of  astonishment,  and  in  his  r.  he  holds  a sagaris.  A quiver  (un- 
decorated) hangs  at  his  1.  side.  Behind  the  warrior  a dog  seen 
from  the  back  who  looks  up  at  a woman  who  stands  to  1.  at  the 
r.h.  side  of  the  group.  She  is  clad  in  a chiton  and  cloak,  and 
holds  a phiale  on  which  is  a pattern,  lotos  bud  (?)  in  her  1.  while 
1 Wernicke,  loc.  cit.  p.  74,  would  read  Aa[6]5a;uas. 


Plate  XII 


Wurzburg  300  (E  4) 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


55 


raising  her  r.  in  an  attitude  similar  to  that  of  the  Scythian.  In 
her  hair  a stephane.  Her  1.  elbow  projects  into  the  side  border 
as  does  the  helmet  into  the  upper  border.  Senseless  inscriptions 
in  the  field. 

B.  Revel.  In  the  center  a nude,  bearded  man  to  r.  holding 
in  his  r.  a kotyle  and  in  his  1.  a chelys.  In  front  of  him  to  1.  a 
nude  hetaira  wearing  a necklace  and  holding  a flute  in  each 
hand.  Behind  him  to  1.  but  turning  back,  a second  man  slightly 
bearded,  holding  by  the  handle  in  his  r.  a kylix,  with  the  contents 
of  which  he  is  about  to  besprinkle  his  fellow,  while  with  his  1.  he 
grasps  a large  pithos  by  the  handle.  All  three  figures  wear  vine 
wreaths.  In  the  field  senseless  inscriptions. 

Cover.  B.f.  technique.  A frieze  of  two  three-horse  chariots  and 
a biga  with  their  charioteers  and  a loose  horse  galloping  to  r. 
towards  a meta  which  is  adorned  with  a white  fillet.  The  chariot- 
eers wear  white  chitons. 

The  shape,  palmettes  under  the  grooved,  ivied  handles,  ray 
pattern  on  base  and  purple  stripes  vary  in  no  way  from  the  signed 
amphorae.  Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  wreaths,  sash  of 
sword,  strings  of  the  chelys  and  the  hetaira’s  necklace.  The  out- 
line of  the  hair  is  incised  except  in  the  case  of  the  warrior  on  the 
obverse  where  it  is  reserved.  Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines. 

Borders.  Obverse.  Lower,  A 4 (a) ; sides,  A 4 (c) ; upper,  B i (5) ; 
(the  palmettes  have  five  leaves  here  instead  of  the  usual  seven). 
The  reverse  has  the  same  borders  for  the  bottom  and  sides,  but  the 
upper  is  A 5 (a). 

Hauser  (loc.  cit.)  has  already  analyzed  with  considerable  detail 
the  question  of  the  motive  represented  on  the  obverse  and  I may 
spare  myself  the  trouble  of  repeating  his  arguments  except  to 
state  briefly  that  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  object 
held  in  the  hand  of  the  warrior  is  the  sacrificial  entrails  brought 
for  his  inspection.  The  reverse  represents  a mere  revel  similar  to 
that  on  the  reverse  of  E I so  that  little  need  be  said  of  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  vase.  As  the  inscriptions  are  senseless  none  of  the 
figures  can  be  identified. 

The  question,  however,  of  the  authorship  of  the  vase  is  by  no 
means  an  easy  one.  That  the  obverse  is  to  be  assigned  to  Euthy- 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


56 

mides  still  seems  to  me  correct  although  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  general  execution  is  by  no  means  as  good  as  most  of  his 
work;  at  the  same  time  the  criticism  of  Beazley  that  the  work  is 
“ wretched  ” seems  to  me  much  too  strong.  Furtwangler  and 
Hauser  assign  it  absolutely  to  Euthymides,  and  I see  no  reason 
to  depart  from  the  view  already  expressed  in  my  previous  essay 
that  it  is  by  him.  Certainly  most  of  his  characteristic  features 
are  to  be  found  on  the  obverse.  The  heads  follow  the  usual  pro- 
portion of  one-seventh,  and  the  build  of  the  figures  is  the  same. 
The  eyes,  noses,  mouths,  chins,  ears,  and  profiles  are  his;  so  are 
the  long,  curving  fingers  without  nails,  the  long  feet,  the  wreaths, 
the  borders  of  the  garments,  and  the  symmetrical  grouping  of  the 
figures.  Llauser  comments  on  the  separation  of  the  nose  from 
the  mouth  and  cheek  by  faint  lines,  and  the  broken  borders  of  the 
himatia.  The  r.  hand  of  the  woman  is  almost  a duplicate  of  that 
of  the  Komarchos  on  the  reverse  of  E I.  The  helmet  projects  into 
the  upper  border  as  on  that  vase  while  the  cuirass  is  exactly  like 
that  worn  by  the  two  warriors  on  E I and  II.  If  E 4 does  not 
display  the  Euthymidean  touch  as  much  as  some  of  the  others 
it  may  certainly  be  considered  as  a school-piece. 

A few  points  are  worthy  of  special  mention.  The  preliminary 
drawing  shows  that  a figure  wrapped  in  a mantle  was  originally 
intended  in  place  of  the  Scythian;  that  the  artist  wished  to 
represent  a foreigner  and  not  an  Athenian  in  Scythian  garb,  is 
made  evident  by  the  goatee,  an  unmistakable  foreign  character- 
istic. The  boy,  following  the  unvarying  method  of  the  art  of  this 
time,  is  represented  as  a miniature  man.  By  a curious  error 
the  artist  has  filled  in  the  space  under  the  woman’s  left  arm  which 
should  have  been  left  in  the  natural  clay  to  indicate  the  back  of 
the  himation.  The  most  noteworthy  feature  is  the  dog  seen  from 
behind,  a truly  remarkable  step  in  vase-painting.  This  is 
paralleled  by  a r.f.  kylix  published  by  Hartwig  and  assigned  to 
Euphronios  {Meistersch.  pi.  x)  as  well  as  a b.f.  lekythos  in  Athens 
(ibid.  p.  no,  fig.  16),  but  the  lekythos  is  late  and  the  kylix  is 
probably  not  as  early  as  our  vase  so  that  the  credit  for  this  step 
probably  belongs  to  Euthymides.  Hauser  (loc.  cit.  p.  225)  re- 
marks that  the  effect  of  the  rather  loose-jointed  legs  is  successful 
“ weil  in  der  That  junge  Doggen  ihre  Glieder  herumwerfen  als 


Plate  XIII 


Leyden  23.36  (E  5)  obverse 


Plate  XIV 


Leyden  23.36  (E  5) 


t 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


57 


wenn  sie  nicht  ihnen  gehorten.”  This  is  perfectly  true,  but  as 
the  same  effect  is  to  be  observed  in  the  legs  of  the  horses  just  cited 
it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  artist  was  not  trying  to  draw  a puppy 
and  that  the  effect  was  unintentional.  But  it  does  represent  a 
remarkable  step  forward  and  shows  Euth}miides  as  a distinct 
innovator  among  the  vase-painters. 

Practically  a duplicate  of  this  scene  occurs  on  an  amphora  in  the 
Louvre  (G  46)  cited  by  Hauser  as  aus  derselben  Werkstatt  ” 
(i.  e.  of  Euth}Tnides).  This  vase  is  attributed  by  Beazley  {Brit. 
School.  Ann.  Ath.  xix,  p.  235,  Xo.  6;  published  in  the  Louvre 
Album,  ii,  p.  145,  pi.  93)  to  the  Xikoxenos  Vlaster.  Before  read- 
ing Beazley ’s  article  I had  satisfied  myself  by  personal  examina- 
tion that  the  vase  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  work  of  Euthymides 
and  that  the  same  was  true  of  its  companion  piece,  G 45,  with  the 
name  of  Dikaios  {v.  p.  67).  While  certain  scenes  in  vase-painting 
were  the  common  property  of  most  of  the  potters  there  were  many 
like  the  present  which  are  not  common,  and  it  is  permissible  to 
wonder  whether  frequent  imitations  of  the  work  of  well-known 
potters  were  not  made  in  Athens  and  sold  as  “ almost  as  good.” 
It  would  be  a valuable  contribution  to  our  knowledge  of  vase- 
painting  if  a thorough  analysis  could  be  made  of  vases  which 
show  superficially  the  style  of  any  well-known  artist  and  might 
possibly  be  regarded  as  imitations. 

The  reverse,  for  reasons  to  be  discussed  later  (z'.  p.  158)  I 
attribute  to  the  Kleophrades  painter.  This  gives  us  the  second 
example  of  divided  workmanship  on  a vase,  the  other  being 
E 2 = British  Aluseum,  E 255. 

The  little  b.f.  frieze  on  the  cover  has  already  been  discussed 
on  p.  38. 

E 5.  [Pis.  XIII  and  XIV]:  Amphora,  Leyden,  Xo.  36  (Case 
23).  From  Vulci.  The  dimensions  are  not  given  in  the 
catalogue. 

Holwerda,  Cat.  pp.  106,  107,  Xo.  36. 

Roulez,  de  Leyde,  pp.  52-57,  pi.  13  = Reinach  ii,  p.  273,  Xo.  i. 

Hartwig,  p.  80,  Xo.  3 (attributed  to  Oltos). 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  22,  vi. 

Robert,  Bild  u.  Lied,  p.  214  (Holwerda  in  Cat.  gives  the  reference 
wrongly  as  Arch.  March.). 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


S8 

A.  Bacchic  Scene.  In  center  Dionysos  to  r.,  bearded,  with 
long  hair,  wearing  a vine  wreath  and  clad  in  an  Ionic  chiton 
and  himation,  holding  in  his  r.  a kantharos  and  in  his  1.  a grape 
vine.  He  turns  back  towards  a maenad,  similarly  clad,  who 
advances  to  r.  her  head  turned  back.  She  wears  a saccos  and 
earrings,  and  holds  in  her  r.  a thyrsos  and  in  her  raised  1.  the 
krotala.  Decorated  border  on  the  upper  edge  of  her  mantle.  On 
the  r.  of  the  picture  a second  maenad  clad  exactly  like  the  first, 
with  krotala  in  both  hands  (?) . Zig-zag  border  on  the  upper  edge 
of  her  cloak.  The  handle  of  the  thyrsos  projects  into  the  l.h. 
border. 

B.  Contest  of  Lykurgos  and  Amphiaraos  (?).  In  center  a 
bearded  warrior  to  r.  turning  his  head  to  1.,  with  long  hair  and 
ringlets.  He  wears  a Corinthian  helmet,  short  chiton,  cuirass 
and  greaves  and  has  a short  cloak  thrown  over  both  shoulders. 
He  raises  his  r.  with  a forbidding  gesture.  On  either  side  a 
group  composed  of  a warrior  whose  waist  is  clasped  by  a 
nude  ephebos.^  The  r.h.  warrior  is  represented  as  bearded, 
the  other  as  beardless.  Both  wear  Corinthian  helmets  and  are 
nude  save  for  a sword  belt  and  scabbard  slung  over  the  1.  hip. 
The  bearded  warrior  holds  his  sword  in  his  r.  and  stretches  out  his 
1.  towards  the  central  figure,  while  the  other  also  stretches  out 
his  1.  while  feeling  for  his  sword  (by  a very  awkward  gesture) 
with  his  r.  The  helmet  and  right  hand  of  the  central  warrior 
and  the  right  elbows  and  helmets  of  the  two  other  warriors  pro- 
ject into  the  upper  and  side  borders. 

The  form  and  decoration  differ  in  no  way  from  the  usual  one. 
Purple  is  used  for  the  wreaths  and  sword  belts.  Outline  of  hair 
and  that  of  the  bunches  of  grapes  incised.  Anatomical  details  in 
faint  lines. 

Borders.  The  same  on  both  sides.  Below  A 2;  sides,  B 3 (c); 
upper,  B 1 (b). 

The  vase  is  provided  with  a cover,  but  I am  unable  to  discover 
whether  it  possesses  any  decoration.  Holwerda’s  description  in 
the  catalogue  is  very  brief  and  the  cover  is  not  mentioned  at  all. 
As  he  also  fails  to  note  that  the  two  youths  on  the  obverse  have 

^ Owing  to  a false  restoration  both  epheboi  are  represented  as  female. 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


S9 


been  falsely  restored  as  females  it  is  possible  that  the  vase,  as  it 
now  stands  in  the  museum  at  Leyden,  has  had  the  restorations 
removed.  I have  not  been  able,  unfortunately,  to  examine  the 
vase  personally. 

Roulez  in  his  publication  of  the  amphora  made  no  attempt  to 
identify  the  artist.  Hartwig  attributed  it  to  Oltos,  and  in  my 
earlier  essay  I assigned  it  to  Euthymides.  Holwerda  in  the 
catalogue  disagrees  with  both  Hartwig’s  and  my  attributions, 
but  proposes  no  identification  of  his  own. 

It  must  be  frankly  admitted  that  the  identification  of  the  am- 
phora presents  considerable  difficulty.  Such  resemblances  as  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Berlin  and  Corneto  kylixes  signed  by  Oltos  as 
painter  (IE.  E.,  D i and  ii)  are  those  peculiar  to  the  period  and  none 
of  them  are  necessarily  characteristic  of  Oltos  and  no  one  else. 
For  Euthymides  on  the  other  hand,  the  general  style  and  propor- 
tion of  the  figures  (certainly  those  of  the  obverse),  the  drapery 
with  its  fine,  crinkly  lines,  the  double  line  at  the  edge  of  the 
chitons,  the  feet,  profiles,  krobylos,  heads  inclined  downwards, 
foreshortening  of  figures  from  the  back  and  the  decorative  borders 
speak  quite  clearly.  While  each  particular  detail  may  not  be  more 
characteristic  of  Euthymides  than  another  master,  the  cumulative 
effect  is  considerable.  In  fairness,  however,  it  must  be  pointed 
out  that  we  do  not  find  any  of  the  absolutely  distinctive  and 
individual  ‘‘  hall-marks  ” seen  on  some  of  the  other  attributions. 
The  safest  plan  perhaps  is  to  regard  the  vase  as  a school-piece. 

The  obverse  calls  for  no  comment  for  it  presents  the  stereotyped 
Bacchic  scene,  the  only  variation  from  the  type  being  that  no 
silens  are  included.  But  the  subject  of  the  reverse  is  very  diffi- 
cult to  explain.  Roulez’s  first  assumption  that  it  represented  the 
contest  of  Tydeus  and  Polyneikes  at  the  court  of  Adrastos  sepa- 
rated by  Deiphyle  and  Argeia  was  rendered  impossible  when  the 
female  figures  proved  to  be  male,  falsely  restored;  afterwards  he 
suggested  the  quarrel  of  Lykurgos  and  Amphiaraos,  separated  by 
Adrastos  and  the  two  sons  of  Hypsipyle.  Pottier  (Reinach,  Rep. 
ii,  p.  273)  interprets  it  as  the  strife  between  Ajax  and  Odysseus 
for  the  arms  of  Achilles;  and  Robert  (loc.  cit.)  gives  the  same 
explanation,  calling  the  central  figure  Agamemnon  and  the  two 


6o 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


youths  Achaeans.  None  of  these  explanations  is  entirely  satis- 
factory, but  the  last  has  probably  more  to  be  said  in  its  favor 
than  the  others. 

E 6.  [Pis.  XV  and  XVI  and  Fig.  6]:  Amphora,  Louvre  G 44. 

From  Etruria  (Vulci  ?):  h.  m.  0.60;  one  handle  and  part  of 

base  restored. 

Cat.  iii,  p.  914;  Album,  ii,  p.  144,  pi.  92. 

Mus.  etr.  No.  1756. 

Klein,  LL,  p.  125,  No.  i. 

A.  Warrior’s  Departure.  At  the  1.  of  the  group  a beardless 
charioteer  to  r.  clad  in  an  Attic  helmet,  short  chiton,  cuirass  and 
greaves,  mounts  a chariot  drawn  by  four  horses  (only  the  heads 
of  three  visible) . He  holds  the  reins  in  both  hands  and  in  his  r. 
the  goad.  Facing  him  to  L,  half-concealed  by  the  horses,  a bearded 
warrior  similarly  clad  (Corinthian  helmet:  on  the  crest  a serpent 
in  silhouette)  holding  his  lance  in  his  r.  over  his  r.  shoulder  and  in 
his  1.  his  shield  (device  a winged  siren  or  sphinx  in  silhouette). 
At  the  r.  of  the  group,  facing  the  horses,  a boy  clad  in  a long  mantle 
which  leaves  the  r.  shoulder  bare,  wearing  a wreath  in  his  hair, 
and  raising  his  r.  as  if  to  check  the  horses.  In  the  field  A A [ M ] A ^ , 
+ AI  . . . ^0^1^,  + A0+^.  Both  helmets  project  into  the 
upper  border. 

B.  In  the  center  a female  figure  ^ to  r.  clad  in  a long  mantle  very 
high  in  the  neck,  and  an  Ionic  chiton,  with  an  olive  wreath  in  her 
hair,  holding  in  both  hands  an  olive  wreath  towards  an  ephebos 
who  faces  her  to  1.  He  is  clad  in  a long  mantle  which  leaves  his 
r.  arm,  shoulder  and  breast  bare,  and  wears  a flower  wreath  in  his 
hair.  In  his  r.  he  holds  a knobbed  staff  and  raises  his  1.  as  if  to 
refuse.  Over  his  r.  arm  + AlP  (retrograde)  and  below  E-TI. 
At  the  1.  of  the  group  a bearded  man  to  r.  wearing  a flower  wreath 
in  his  hair  and  a long  mantle  which  leaves  his  r.  arm,  shoulder  and 
breast  bare.  His  r.  hand  rests  on  his  hip  and  his  1.  is  extended  while 

1 Pettier  calls  the  central  figure  an  ephebos  dressed  in  female  garb.  Barring  the 
drapery  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  whether  the  figure  is  male  or  female.  Since 
the  figure  wears  ringlets  I am  inclined  to  think  that  it  is  female.  Only  two  of  the 
male  figures  on  the  signed  vases  wear  ringlets  (Priam  on  E I,  and  the  l.h.  figure  on 
the  reverse  of  E III)  but  as  both  are  bearded  no  doubts  could  arise  as  to  their  sex. 


Plate  XV 


Louvre  G 44  (E  6)  obverse 


*■ 


Plate  XVI 


Louvre  G 44  (E  6)  reverse 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


6l 


he  supports  himself  with  a knobbed  staff  below  his  1.  armpit.  His 
legs  are  crossed.  In  front  of  him  ^A.  The  feet  of  all  three  figures 
are  restored. 

The  form  and  decoration  are  identically  the  same  as  all  the 
others  heretofore  described.  Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions, 


wreaths  and  reins.  Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines.  Outline  of 
hair  reserved. 

Borders.  Obverse.  Below,  A 4 (a);  sides,  A 9;  upper  B i (c). 
Reverse,  lower  and  upper  the  same  as  the  obverse,  on  sides 
A 4 (a).  Under  base  graffito^  (Fig.  7). 

Pettier  assigns  the  obverse  to  Andokides  and  the  reverse  to 
Euthymides  though  he  acknowledges  that  the  style  is  inferior, 
and  is  disposed  to  consider  that  if  it  comes  from 
\ * the  workshop  of  the  latter  it  should  be  regarded 
^ as  a school-piece.  Beazley  (/.  H.  S.  1910,  p.  41) 
calls  this  vase,  as  well  as  G 45,  a bad  copy  by  the 
master  or  else  a close  copy  by  some  imitator. 


^ The  graffito  is  not  mentioned  in  Hackl’s  list.  It  resembles  the  monogram  on 
the  foot  of  British  Museum,  E 163.  (Hackl,  p.  50,  No.  569.  Cf.  ibid.,  pi.  ii.  No. 
575-) 


62 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Neither  view  seems  to  me  to  be  justified.  While  it  is  true  that 
the  execution  is  not  equal  to  that  of  the  signed  vases  it  is  con- 
siderably better  than  some  others  usually  assigned  to  Euthymides 
(E  4,  for  example),  and  as  I shall  show  presently  exhibits  a num- 
ber of  the  veritable  “ hall-marks  ” which  would  forbid  its  being 
considered  as  a school-piece.  Nor  after  a careful  examination  can 
I observe  any  real  difference  in  the  authorship  of  the  two  sides. 
Could  such  a difference  be  detected  and  the  obverse  assigned  to 
another  hand  than  that  of  Euthymides,  the  Andokides  painter 
would  be  eliminated  unless  on  the  supposition  that  he  was  a 
member  of  the  same  workshop  as  Euthymides,  for  which  we  have 
no  evidence  as  yet.  The  joint  workmanship  of  two  painters  on 
the  same  vase  is  now,  I think,  generally  admitted,  but  it  does  not 
seem  in  the  least  likely  that  two  painters  from  two  different  work- 
shops could  possibly  have  worked  on  the  same  vase.  G 45  is  far 
inferior  in  execution  and  I cannot  detect  any  sign  which  would 
justify  me  in  adding  it  to  the  list  of  attributions  to  Euthymides. 
In  fact  it  lacks  every  distinguishing  characteristic  and  is  not,  to 
my  mind,  well  enough  executed  to  be  considered  even  as  a school- 
piece. 

The  proportion  of  the  figures  coincides  with  the  Euthymidean 
canon.  The  hair  ends  in  the  little  bunch  over  the  forehead  (the 
Bonnkalpis  shows  that  the  hair  outline  was  sometimes  reserved) 
and  the  ears  show  the  unmistakable  Euthymidean  touch  of  the 
two  curved  lines  of  the  inner  ear  meeting  at  a sharp  angle.  The 
eyes,  noses,  profiles,  and  moustaches  covering  only  half  the  lip 
are  also  his.  The  collar  bones  have  the  same  broad  hooks,  and 
the  fingers  curl  at  the  ends  and  have  no  nails.  Such  anatomical 
details  as  appear  are  decidedly  in  his  style,  while  the  drapery, 
almost  more  clearly  than  on  any  other  unsigned  vase,  shows  the 
characteristic  peculiarity  of  faint  lines  radiating  from  a central 
point.  Further,  the  bearded  heads  are  virtually  duplicates  of  those 
on  the  reverse  of  E I and  II.  The  central  figure  on  the  reverse 
wears  the  mantle  high  in  the  neck  like  Korone  on  E III  and 
Hecuba  on  E I and  the  bearded  figure  on  E i.  The  1.  hand  of  the 
r.h.  figure  on  the  reverse  is  remarkably  like  that  of  Korone  or  the 
trainer  on  E II  while  the  1.  hand  of  the  bearded  figure  resembles 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


63 

the  r.  hand  of  Kerkyon  on  E IV.  The  r.  hand  of  the  bearded 
warrior  on  the  obverse  has  exactly  the  same  curved  lines  to  be 
seen  on  the  1.  hand  of  the  l.h.  komast  on  the  reverse  of  E I. 

The  scene  on  the  obverse  is  something  entirely  new  in  Euthy- 
mides’  work  and  as  both  the  figures  are  in  armor  and  no  details  of 
drapery  or  anatomy  are  to  be  seen  by  which  the  authorship  might 
be  detected,  there  might  seem  some  reason  for  attributing  it  to 
another  hand  were  it  not  for  the  tell-tale  ear  of  the  bearded 
warrior  which  is  identically  the  same  as  that  on  the  figures  of 
the  reverse.  He  stands  in  the  same  attitude  as  the  warrior  on  the 
obverse  of  E i.  Eor  the  first  time  we  meet  the  horse  in  Euthy- 
mides’  work,  and  a careful  examination  will  show  that  the  result 
is  excellent.  In  fact,  the  horses  seem  to  me  to  be  better  drawn 
and  better  proportioned  than  those  of  Onesimos.  They  are  very 
similar  to  the  quadriga  of  the  Hypsis  hydria  in  Munich  (H  I,  v. 
p.  136),  but  even  better  proportioned.  As  they  lack  the  little 
point  over  the  forehead  which  we  see  on  the  Hypsis  horses  I do 
not  feel  disposed  to  consider  that  he  could  have  had  any  share  in 
their  design.  The  boy  in  front  of  the  quadriga  calls  for  no  com- 
ment, since  the  introduction  of  such  a figure  is  by  no  means  rare 
in  Euthymides’  work  (other  instances  on  E 4,  E 7,  and  E 8).  We 
have  here  merely  a departure  scene  with  no  special  significance. 

The  scene  on  the  reverse  is  paralleled  by  the  hydria  in  the 
British  Museum,  E 175,  attributed  by  Beazley  to  the  Troilos 
Master  (/.  H.  S.  1912,  p.  171,  No.  2,  pi.  hi)  where  the  presenta- 
tion of  a wreath  occurs.  Our  interpretation  of  the  scene  on  the 
Louvre  amphora  depends  very  largely  whether  the  central  figure 
be  regarded  as  male  or  female.  If  the  figure  is  male,  then  since  no 
mythological  scene  was  intended,  we  must  either  consider  that 
one  ephebos  is  crowning  the  other  or  else  proudly  exhibiting  his 
prize,  but  in  that  case  one  is  at  a loss  to  account  for  the  female 
dress.  If  the  figure  is  female  it  is  natural  to  regard  the  scene  as  a 
victorious  athlete  before  his  father  and  mother,^  receiving  from 
the  latter’s  hands  the  reward  of  his  exertions.  The  latter  ex- 
planation seems  to  me  to  be  more  probable. 

^ Hecuba  on  E I is  represented  as  youthful  so  that  we  need  not  necessarily  reject 
this  explanation  on  account  of  the  youthful  appearance  of  the  mother. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


64 

As  usual,  the  inscriptions  are  troublesome.  Only  the  name  of 
Damas  is  clear  on  the  obverse  and  as  that  name  is  not  a common 
one  it  may  be  that  Ladamas  was  intended.  On  the  reverse  we 
may  either  read  together  with  some  name  which  cannot  be 
deciphered  (the  break  between  the  e and  the  r makes  it  certain 
that  xottpere  was  not  intended)  or  else  Xatpe[a-]r[paros].  In  that 
case  we  have  the  first  instance  of  the  name  which  is  used  so 
generally  by  Douris.  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  two  letters  beside 
the  bearded  man  are  or  nor  can  we  tell  what  the  original 
name  was. 

The  borders  are  duplicates  of  those  used  by  Euthymides  but 
they  are  the  common  property  of  all  the  masters  of  the  time. 

E7.  [Pis.  XVII,  XVIII,  XIX  and  Eig.  8]:  Psykter,  British 

Museum,  E 767.  Provenience  unknown.  The  vase  was 

formerly  in  the  Magnoncourt  Collection:  h.  m.  0.33. 

British  Museum,  Cat.  iii,  p.  362. 

Jahn,  Dichter  auf  Vasenb.  pi.  v. 

Genick,  Griech.  Keramik.  pi.  23,  fig.  i. 

Baumeister,  p.  1900,  fig.  2133. 

Stephani,  C.  R.  1864,  p.  115. 

Wernicke,  p.  73,  No.  i. 

Klein,  p.  197,  No.  3;  Euphronios,  p.  264. 

Milani,  Mus.  Ital.  iii,  p.  251. 

Kretschmer,  p.  151. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  22,  vii;  p.  35. 

c.  /.  a 7857- 

A.  Revel.  Two  bearded  men,  wearing  high  boots,  and  a 
mantle  over  the  shoulders,  dance  with  bent  knees,  to  r.  The  one 
on  the  1.  is  wreathed  with  olive  and  plays  on  the  flutes;  the  fore- 
most looks  downwards,  extending  on  his  1.  palm  a kylix  and 
carrying  on  his  r.  against  his  side  a large  kotyle  (black  silhouette) ; 
the  upper  part  of  his  head  and  part  of  the  kylix  are  broken  away. 
On  the  r.  is  inscribed  . . + A P + ON  between  the  figures  K A PTA 
AIKAIO^. 

B.  The  same.  Two  bearded  men  as  before,  partly  bald,  with 
long  pointed  beards,  preceded  by  a small  boy,  all  dancing  to  r. 
The  1.  h.  figure  looks  back,  holding  his  knobbed  staff  vertically 
to  r.;  in  his  1.  hand  he  holds  against  his  body  a kylix  (outline). 


Plate  XVII 


British  Museum  E 767  (E  7) 


V. 


Plate  XVIII 


British  Museum  E 767  (E  7)  obverse 


• 


i 

1 


i 


■ ! 
■.  ! 


■ ■■■ 


J 


Plate  XIX 


British  Museum  E 767  (E  7)  reverse 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


6S 

The  other  man  has  attached  to  his  1.  arm  by  a sash,  a chelys,  of 
which  he  strikes  the  cords.  His  r.  hand  is  laid  on  his  side,  the 
thumb  hidden  in  a fold  of  his  mantle,  which  covers  the  front  of 
his  body,  hanging  from  the  shoulders.  The  boy  as  he  dances 
looks  downwards,  with  r.  arm  extended  and  1.  leg  raised;  with 
his  1.  hand  he  seems  to  strike  himself  under  the  1.  thigh;  he  wears 
a wreath  of  olive,  the  other  two  vine  wreaths.  In  the  field  is 
inscribed  KVAIA^  +AIPE  +AIPE.1 

The  form  of  the  psykter  is  approximately  that  of  the  one  in 
Turin  except  that  it  has  no  flange  at  the  top.  Purple  is  used  for 


Fig.  8. 

the  wreaths,  inscriptions,  sash,  and  tuning-pegs  of  the  lyre.  Faint 
lines  for  the  anatomical  details,  and  the  hair  on  the  breast  of  the 
bearded  men  is  stippled  in  faint  brown.  Hair  and  beards  when 
against  the  black  background  incised,  except  in  the  case  of  the 
player  of  the  lyre  whose  beard  has  a red  outline.  The  inscriptions 
are  coarsely  executed. 

^ KuStas  is  over  the  shoulder  of  the  kitharist  and  one  xaipe  along  his  cloak; 
the  second  is  under  the  boy’s  arm. 


66 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


The  frieze  is  bordered  above  and  below  by  a purple  stripe  with 
A 6 above.  Around  the  rim  a coarse  ovolo  pattern.  The  sides 
of  the  handles  are  colored  purple  and  below  them  a double  pal- 
mette  with  two  smaller  ones  on  each  side  (Fig.  8).  The  moulding 
above  the  shoulder  is  also  in  purple. 

Although  the  psykter  has  been  generally  recognized  for  many 
years  as  a work  of  Euthymides,  it  has  never  been  adequately  pub- 
lished. Jahn’s  plate  is  not  good  and  includes  the  restorations 
(head  of  figure  with  the  kotyle  and  r.  thigh  of  flute-player)  which 
have  now  been  removed. 

But  in  spite  of  the  general  acceptance  of  this  vase  as  coming 
from  Euthymides’  hand,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  execu- 
tion is  by  no  means  as  good  as  that  of  the  signed  vases.  In  fact 
it  is  distinctly  slipshod  especially  in  the  decoration,  the  palmettes 
being  rather  poor;  also  the  lettering  of  the  inscriptions  is  coarser 
than  on  any  signed  vase.  A very  brief  comparison  with  the  Turin 
psykter  will  show  its  inferiority.  It  is  very  difficult  to  decide 
whether  the  vase  should  be  regarded  as  actually  from  the  hand  of 
Euthymides  or  as  a school-piece. 

It  seems  almost  superfluous  to  emphasize  the  details  which  are 
peculiar  to  Euthymides,  but  a brief  summary  may  perhaps  be 
advisable.  The  treatment  of  the  hair,  eyes,  ears,  noses,  mouths, 
beards,  wreaths,^  hands,  and  fingers  is  distinctly  in  his  manner. 
The  lines  of  the  sternum,  abdominal  muscles,  and  linea  alba  are 
the  same.  As  the  scrotum  is  seen  in  profile  we  have  no  trace 
of  the  triple  division,  but  one  has  only  to  compare  it  with  that  of 
any  of  the  nude  figures  on  the  signed  vases  which  are  seen  in 
profile  to  recognize  the  similarity.  There  is  the  suspicion  of  a 
finger-nail  on  the  forefinger  of  the  flute-player  about  as  marked 
as  that  on  the  r.  forefinger  of  Priam  on  E I.  All  the  figures,  except 
the  boy,  wear  boots  so  that  the  ankles  do  not  show,  but  the 
feet  are  much  too  long.  The  drapery  is  distinctly  Euthymidean 
especially  in  the  swing  of  the  cloaks,  and  their  borders  are  not 
continuous.  The  palmette  scroll  under  the  handles,  as  well  as  the 
tongue  pattern  of  the  upper  border,  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
a duplicate  of  that  on  E IV  and  differs  only  in  unimportant  de- 
1 We  find  the  same  wreath  used  on  the  figures  on  E 8,  v.  p.  70. 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


67 

tails.  The  only  detail  which  is  not  characteristic  of  Euthymides 
is  that  the  collar  bones  of  the  kitharist  which  are  in  relief  lines 
join  the  sternum  directly  instead  of  being  in  faint  lines  and 
separated  from  it. 

A few  points  are  worth  remarking.  The  stippling  of  the  breast 
to  indicate  hair  we  meet  with  for  the  first  time  in  Euthymides^ 
work.  The  kitharist  and  the  bearer  of  the  kylix  have  heads 
narrowing  slightly  at  the  top  as  was  the  case  with  the  heads  of 
the  two  old  men  on  E i and  2.  The  boy  is  not  unlike  his  fellow 
on  E 4,  but  he  is  rather  hastily  drawn.  The  kylix  belongs  to  the 
older  type.  Only  six  strings  are  given  to  the  lyre,  but  we  have 
already  seen  that  the  same  mistake  occurred  on  the  lyre  on  the 
reverse  of  E i.  The  flutes  differ  in  no  way  from  the  regular  form. 

As  usual,  the  inscriptions  are  not  very  clear.  Two  names  are 
certain,  Kydias  and  another  ending  in  xapxo^  for  which  Sir  Cecil 
Smith  has  suggested  [NtJxapx^^  which  is  perhaps  as  good  a sug- 
gestion as  any.^  Kydias  obviously  refers  to  the  player  of  the  lyre 
and  the  two  xct^pe  can  only  be  taken  with  this  name.  Plato 
{Charmides,  115  D),  mentions  a celebrated  kitharist  of  that  name 
from  Hermione  and  it  is  certainly  significant  that  it  should  here 
be  applied  to  the  lyre-player  with  the  complimentary  formula. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  does  not  seem  fanciful  to  see  here  a 
reference  to  the  musician.  No  other  instance  of  the  use  of  the 
name  Ntx^PX^^  is  known  to  me. 

Kdpra  dlKatos  may  be  explained  in  two  ways,  either  as  a 
proper  name  or  as  a eulogistic  formula.  An  amphora  in  the 
Louvre  (G  45 ; Pettier,  Vases  Ant.  du  Louvre,  p.  145)  has  on  it  the 
formula  At/catos  koKos  koKos  xctfp^?  ^.nd  Pettier  cites  E 7 as  bear- 
ing the  inscription  /cdpra  At/catos  x«-fp^-  We  have  seen,  how- 
ever, that  xctfp^  is  not  on  the  same  side  as  Kapra  diKaLos.  It  is 
perfectly  possible  that  we  have  here  the  name  of  Dikaios.  Accord- 
ing to  Herodotus  (viii,  65),  an  Athenian  of  that  name,  the  son  of 
Theokydes,  who  as  a companion  of  the  Peisistratidae  had  been 
with  Xerxes  during  his  invasion  of  Greece,  saw  the  vision  of  the 

^ As  the  last  letter  can  be  nothing  else  but  a mi-  the  name  must  be  as  stated  unless 
we  assume  that  an  error  has  occurred  in  the  inscription  and  that  the  painter  intended 
(as  is  possible)  to  write  the  name  of  Nicharchos. 


68 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Procession  of  the  Eleusinian  Mysteries  in  the  Thriasian  Plain.  He 
was  thus  certainly  a contemporary  if  not  the  senior  of  Hipparchos 
and  might  well  have  been  celebrated  with  the  koXos  formula  by 
the  potters  of  Athens,  but  obviously  prior  to  510  b.c.,  and  it 
would  be  difficult  to  assign  such  an  early  date  to  our  vase  or  the 
Louvre  amphora. 

If  we  regard  the  inscription  as  eulogistic  then  we  have  another 
case  of  self-laudation  very  similar  to  the  evye  palxt  on  E IV. 
This  explanation  seems  to  me  to  be  preferable. 

E 8.  [ Pis.  XX  and  XXI] : Kalyx-Krater,  Berlin,  2180.  From 

Capua:  h.  m.  0.35,  d.  m.  0.44.  Form  Berlin  Cat.  pL  i,  40. 

Furtwangler,  Bert.  Cat.  p.  501,  No.  2180. 

A.  Z.  1879,  pp.  31  ff.,  pi.  4 (Klein). 

Klein,  p.  197,  No.  4;  LI.,  p.  79,  No.  38. 

Zielinski,  Rhein.  Mus.  1884,  pp.  106,  116. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  22,  viii.  Wernicke,  pp.  34,  note  i,  40,  12. 

Robert,  A.  Z.  1878,  p.  76  (attributed  to  Euphronios). 

F.  R.  ii,  p.  177  (also  attributed  to  Euphronios). 

A.  Three  groups.  At  the  1.  a nude  youth  to  r.;  body  and 
r.  leg  full  front,  head,  arms,  and  1.  leg  in  profile,  in  the  act  of 
infibulating  himself  with  a cord  held  in  his  r.  Above  his  head 
VEAAPO^  [K]AVO^.  At  his  r.  a nude  boy  to  1.  with  his  r.  arm 
extended,  a cloak  without  folds  over  his  1.  shoulder.  Under  his  1. 
arm  (retrograde)  HOPAI^.^  Behind  the  boy  a nude  discobolus 
preparing  to  swing  the  discus  which  he  holds  in  both  hands. 
Under  his  1.  arm  A NTI4>0N.  Facing  him  to  1.  a youth  wrapped  in 
a cloak  which  leaves  his  r.  arm  and  torso  bare,  his  r.  arm  and  fore- 
finger extended,  holding  a stick  in  his  1.  Beside  him  (retrograde) 
Hirr  + 0^  (sic!).  Behind  him  to  r.  a third  youth,  nude,  in  the 
act  of  laying  aside  his  cloak  which  he  is  folding  over  his  1.  arm. 
To  the  1.  of  his  head  (retrograde)  POWWOW.  Facing  him  to  1.  a 
second  small  boy,  also  nude  with  uplifted  r.  arm  (probably 

^ Furtwangler  considers  6 Trots  as  the  conclusion  of  Kkaypos  koXos.  It  will  be 
noticed,  however,  that  all  the  figures  with  the  exception  of  the  other  two  boys  are 
identified  by  inscriptions.  Surely  the  natural  way  to  regard  them  is  to  suppose  that 
the  youth  infibulating  himself  is  Leagros,  the  inscription  on  the  reverse  simply 
repeating  the  dedication,  and  that  one  small  boy  having  been  properly  labelled  it 
was  unnecessary  to  repeat  the  formula  in  the  case  of  the  other  two. 


Plate  XX 


Berlin  2180  (E  8) 


. I 

1 


Plate  XXI 


Berlin  2180  (E  8) 


1 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES  69 

to  receive  the  cloak),  and  holding  an  alabastron  by  its  cord  in 
his  1.  All  the  figures  wear  ivy  wreaths. 

B.  Two  groups.  At  the  1.  a nude  youth  wearing  a flower 
wreath,  seen  from  behind  and  turning  his  head  to  r.  Over  both 
shoulders  is  draped  a short  cloak.  He  supports  himself  with  a 
knobbed  staff  in  his  1.  while  resting  his  r.  on  the  head  of  a nude 
youth  similarly  wreathed,  who  bends  down  to  1.  holding  his  com- 
panion’s 1.  foot  in  both  hands,  probably  to  remove  a thorn. 
Beside  the  head  of  the  first  H I P P 0 M EA  0 N ; over  the  back  of  the 
second  TPA[N  l]ON(?).  The  second  group  consists  of  three  figures. 
First  a nude  youth  ^ to  r.  holding  in  his  outstretched  r.  an  ala- 
bastron, the  cord  of  which  is  looped  over  his  forearm  and  from 
which  a stream  of  oil  descends  on  his  extended  1.  wrist.  Under 
his  r.  arm  EAE:^IA^  and  below  his  1.  VEAAPO^^  KAVO^.  Separ- 
ated from  him  by  a low  folding-chair  on  which  the  cloak  of  the 
oil-pouring  youth  is  placed,  a second  youth  to  1.  wearing  a vine 
wreath,  his  body  and  r.  leg  full  front,  head,  arms,  and  1.  leg  in 
profile,  his  cloak,  which  he  is  about  to  lay  aside,  folded  over  his 
r.  forearm.  At  the  1.  of  his  head  (retrograde)  VVKO^.  Beside  him 
to  1.  a small  boy  similarly  wreathed  with  outstretched  r.  ready  to 
assist. 

Glaze  on  interior.  Below  rim  on  an  unglazed  background 
a border  of  b.f.  (A  ii)  ivy  leaves,  and  branch  with  korymboi 
between  each  pair  of  leaves.  Below  that,  chain  of  lateral  r.f.  pal- 
mettes  like  A 4 id).  Unsymmetrical  r.f.  palmette  scroll  consist- 
ing of  five  units  over  the  handles  between  the  two  sides.  On 
foot  A 6.  Purple  is  used  for  inscriptions,  wreaths,  cords  of  ala- 
bastra  and  for  infibulation,  and  oil  stream.  Anatomical  details 
in  faint  lines.  Hair  contour  of  all  the  figures  incised.  Technique 
very  fine. 

Except  by  Robert  the  krater  has  been  assigned  to  Euthymides 
without  question  until  recently,  when  Eurtwangler,  retracting  the 
suggestion  he  had  previously  made  in  his  Catalogue  that  the  vase 
might  be  by  Euthymides,  assigned  the  vase  absolutely  to  Eu- 
phronios  (E.  R.  ii,  p.  177).  His  arguments  are  based  on  certain 
similarities  with  the  reverse  of  the  Antaios  krater  in  the  Louvre 


The  preliminary  drawing  shows  that  his  head  was  intended  to  be  more  erect. 


70 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


(F.  R.  ii,  pi.  93)  such  as  the  drawing  of  the  nipples  close  together 
with  faint  diagonal  lines  above  them  on  the  sternum  (this  detail 
is  omitted  in  the  plate  in  the  Archaeologische  Zeitung),  the  model- 
ling of  the  upper  abdominal  muscles,  the  same  wreaths,  incision 
of  hair  contour  and  the  use  of  the  name  Leagros. 

Now  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  for  any  discussion  of  Eu- 
phronios’  style  only  the  three  vases  signed  by  him  as  painter,  the 
Geryon  kylix  (F.  R.  i,  pi.  22),  Louvre  Antaios  krater  (F.  R.  ii, 
pis.  92-93),  and  the  Petrograd  psykter  (F.  R.  ii,  pL  63)  are  to 
be  considered.  If  the  authorship  of  no  other  artist  than  Euphro- 
nios  were  here  in  question  these  details  which  Furtwangler  empha- 
sizes might  be  conclusive.  But  closer  analysis  shows  that  only 
one  of  them  is  peculiar  to  Euphronios  and  that  there  are  numerous 
others  which  are  not  peculiar  to  him  at  all.  In  fact  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  Euphronios  can  have  any  claim  at  all  to  the  authorship 
of  the  krater. 

As  the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  vase  is  not  an  easy  one 
I shall  discuss  the  details  of  it  in  a more  thorough  fashion  than  I 
have  heretofore  done  with  the  vases  concerning  which  the  same 
doubts  have  not  arisen. 

The  proportion  of  the  figures  is  that  of  the  Euthymidean  canon 
of  1 : 7 while  that  of  the  figures  on  the  Antaios  krater  is  i : 6J.  The 
hair  and  eyebrows  do  not  vary  from  the  stereotyped  fashion  of 
almost  all  the  artists  of  the  period.  The  pupils  of  the  eyes  are 
set  nearer  the  inner  corner  than  is  customary  with  Euphronios, 
while  this,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a characteristic  of  Euthymides’ 
drawings.  The  ears  have  a peculiar  double  lobe  which  is  some- 
what like  that  used  by  Hypsis,  but  slightly  different,  and  no 
more  resemble  those  used  by  Euphronios  than  those  of  Euthy- 
mides.  While  the  wreaths  are  the  same  as  on  the  Antaios  krater 
they  are  also  found  on  E 7,  P i and  4.  The  collar  bones  with 
their  small  hook  are  more  like  those  used  by  Phintias  than  those 
of  any  other  artist. 

The  torsos  have  no  linea  alba,  but  such  is  the  case  with  many 
of  Euthymides’  figures  and  the  modelling  of  the  upper  abdominal 
muscles  is  paralleled  by  those  of  the  r.h.  komast  on  the  reverse  of 
E I.  The  nipples  are  set  close  together  and  there  are  faint  diag- 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


71 


onal  lines  on  the  sternum,  precisely  as  on  the  Antaios  krater,  a 
feature  not  found  in  the  work  of  Euthymides.  Although  the 
pubes  has  the  crescent-shaped  form  which  is  found  on  the  obverse 
of  the  Antaios  krater  it  may  also  be  observed  on  E 3 and  K 2. 

The  arms  with  their  careful  delineation  of  the  muscles  and  the 
fingers  without  finger-nails  are  more  characteristic  of  Euthymides 
than  of  Euphronios. 

The  oval-shaped  depression  in  the  center  of  the  thigh  with  the 
line  continued  along  the  length  of  the  upper  leg  is  perhaps  more 
characteristic  of  Euphronios  than  of  Euthymides,  but  as  we  have 
seen,  is  to  be  found  in  the  1.  h.  komast  on  the  reverse  of  E I.  The 
legs  have  the  Euthymidean  frontal  knee.  Only  in  the  case  of 
Lykos  are  the  ankles  delineated  at  all  and  these  do  not  show  any 
distinctive  characteristic.  The  feet  with  the  oval  toes  full  front 
are  quite  Euthymidean.  The  drapery  with  its  rounded  folds 
suggests  more  the  work  of  Hypsis. 

If  the  composition  figure  of  the  vase  on  PL  XLVI  be  examined 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  figures  of  Leagros  and  Lykos  (barring  the 
crossed  legs  in  the  former  which  are  quite  Phintian)  are  duplicates 
of  the  central  figures  on  E I and  II  (obverse) , while  the  attitude  of 
the  boy  to  the  r.  of  Lykos  is  similar  to  that  of  the  r.h.  figures  on 
the  obverse  and  reverse  of  E II.  The  name  of  Leagros  is  to  be 
found  on  E 9.  Furthermore,  we  find  a mistake  in  the  name  of 
Hipparchos.  As  has  already  been  shown,  mistakes  in  the  inscrip- 
tions are  excessively  common  in  the  work  of  the  four  artists  who 
belong  to  the  group  here  under  discussion,  and  carelessness  in 
inscriptions  is  not  usual  in  the  work  of  Euphronios  (the  only 
error  on  one  of  his  signed  vases  being  in  the  Van  Branteghem 
kylix  in  Boston  (Hartwig,  p.  466).  The  kappa  on  E 8 shows  a 
form  somewhat  analogous  to  that  on  the  group  of  Chairias 
kylixes,  v.  p.  103. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  in  this  vase  practically  only  one  detail,  the 
closeness  of  the  nipples,  is  especially  peculiar  to  Euphronios  while 
most  of  the  others  are  either  not  characteristic  of  him  or  else 
are  the  common  property  of  the  artists  of  the  time.  Taking  them 
together  they  seem  more  characteristic  of  the  Euthymidean  group 
than  of  the  Euphronian. 


72 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Unless  we  assume  what  seems  frankly  impossible,  that  Eu- 
phronios  was,  at  one  time  in  his  career,  an  assistant  in  the  same 
workshop  where  Euthymides  worked,  there  is  no  way  in  which 
a share  in  the  making  of  this  vase  can  be  assigned  to  him, 
for  one  detail  peculiar  to  him  is  not  enough  to  outbalance  those 
which  mark  the  work  of  Euthymides,  Phintias,  and  Hypsis.  And 
as  the  composition  drawing  shows  very  plainly  the  hand  of  Eu- 
thymides ^ (considering  his  fondness  for  the  full-face  figure  with 
the  arms  in  the  form  of  a diamond,  the  young  Lykos  and  Leagros 
on  E 8 can  hardly  be  by  any  one  else),  while  most  of  the  other 
details  are  either  peculiar  to  him  or  to  his  two  associates  (as  we 
have  supposed  them  to  be)  the  attribution  of  this  krater  to  the 
actual  atelier  of  Euthymides  seems  the  only  safe  course.  Whether 
the  three  artists  all  had  a hand  in  its  composition  is  impossible  to 
say.  Perhaps  it  is  wiser  to  regard  the  vase  as  a school-piece  with- 
out designating  the  actual  painter.  Since  the  figures  on  both 
sides  are  separated  by  palmette  scrolls  the  vase  probably  belongs 
to  the  earlier  period  of  their  activity,  and  is  contemporaneous 
with  E IV  and  7. 

Of  the  names  employed,  Leagros,  as  we  have  said,  occurs  on 
E 9;  Hipparchos  is  a favorite  name  of  the  artists  of  the  Epikte- 
tan  group;  Lykos  occurs  on  the  Troilos  kylix  (Hartwig,  pis.  58, 
59;  Buschor,  p.  170),  and  on  the  Louvre  kylix  G 105  (Hartwig, 
pi.  53)  signed  by  Euphronios  and  [Onesjimos. 

The  subject-matter  calls  for  little  comment.  The  ephebos 
anointing  himself  has  already  been  seen  on  an  alabastron  signed 
by  Psiax  (Creuzer,  Archaeologia,  hi,  pi.  i).  As  far  as  I know  this 
is  the  earliest  representation  of  the  actual  process  of  infibulation 
though  instances  of  men  or  animals  similarly  adorned  are  by  no 
means  rare  (cf.  A.  Z.  1879,  p.  31). 

^ In  fairness  it  must  be  noted  that  this  motive  is  not  absolutely  peculiar  to 
Euthymides:  a boxer  on  an  amphora  in  Vienna  signed  by  Epiktetos  (formerly  in  the 
Lichtenstein  Collection:  v.  Schneider,  Arch.  Epig.  Mitt.  a.  Oesterr.  v,  pi.  4)  stands 
in  precisely  the  same  attitude.  It  is,  however,  as  far  as  I know,  the  only  case  of  its 
kind  in  the  work  of  Epiktetos, 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES  73 

E 9.  [Fig.  9]:  Hydria-Kalpis  (upper  part  only).  Dresden. 
From  Faldi  collection,  Florence.  Same  form  as  E V. 

Hermann,  Arch.  Anz.  1892,  p.  165,  No.  31. 

Klein,  LI.,  p.  80,  No.  39. 

Hauser,  Jhh.  1895,  p.  112. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  37,  ix. 

Shoulder  only.  On  the  1.,  body  and  r.  leg  full  front,  head  in  pro- 
file to  1.  a nude  athlete  in  the  act  of  throwing  the  javelin  which  he 
holds  by  the  amentum  in  his  r.  while  steadying  the  end  with  his  1. 


Fig.  9 


Over  his  r.  shoulder  a pair  of  hal teres.  Under  the  javelin  VEAA- 
PO^,  under  the  halteres  KAVO^,  and  between  his  legs  ANTIA^. 
At  the  r.  a flute-player  to  1.  (whether  male  or  female  cannot  be 
told  with  certainty)  clad  in  a long  mantle  (the  entire  upper  part 
of  the  figure  with  the  exception  of  the  top  of  the  head  is  missing) 
with  a fillet  in  the  hair.  Between  them  a dikella  and  senseless 
inscriptions.  Behind  the  flute-player  KAVO^. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions  and  the  amentum  of  the 
javelin.  Outline  of  hair  reserved. 


74 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Borders.  On  the  belly  of  the  vase  B i (a);  lower,  A 6;  sides, 
B 1 (b);  upper,  A 8 (d). 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  attribution  of  the  kalpis  to 
Euthymides  is  not  absolutely  certain.  The  general  details,  such 
as  the  reserved  outline  of  the  hair  (to  be  found  on  EV),  the 
slender  build  of  the  figures,  the  long  curving  fingers  and  long 
feet  are  not  necessarily  peculiar  to  Euthymides.  But  the  head 
of  the  akontist  is  practically  a duplicate  of  those  of  Olympio- 
doros  on  E IV,  Hector  on  E I,  and  Thorykion  on  E II,  while 
the  foreshortening  of  the  r.  leg  is  very  much  like  that  of  Theseus 
on  E III.  The  borders  or  their  variants  have  all  been  met  with 
heretofore  in  vases  signed  by  Euthymides,  while  the  form  and 
general  decoration  is  exactly  like  E V.  On  the  whole,  however, 
the  general  style  of  the  vase  is  certainly  more  in  keeping  with 
that  of  the  masters  of  our  group  than  any  others  and  I feel  dis- 
posed to  regard  it  in  any  case  as  a school-piece.  I have  already 
commented  on  the  combination  of  the  names  of  Leagros  and 
Antias  {v.  p.  32).  The  name  of  Antias  also  occurs  on  two  stamnoi 
signed  by  Smikros  in  Brussels  (119),  and  the  British  Museum 
E 438. 

The  combination  of  the  akontist  and  flute-player  is  a favorite 
one  with  the  artists  of  the  period  and  is  used  so  indiscriminately 
that  few  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  its  use.^ 

If  the  attribution  is  correct  it  would  indicate  a distinct  advance 
in  the  general  style  of  Euthymides’  work.  Fragmentary  and 
small  though  the  figure  of  the  akontist  be,  it  is  handled  with  a 
breadth  of  treatment  ahead  of  his  other  work  and  marks  the  same 
advance  as  does  P 6 in  the  work  of  Phintias. 

1 In  addition  to  the  present  vase  the  two  figures  either  separately  or  together  are 
to  be  found  on  the  following : — 

E3;  P4;  P 6;  P 7,  both;  K 4. 

Krater  in  Copenhagen:  (Lange,  Darstellung.  p.  loo,  fig.  31)  both,  but  here 
the  flute-player  faces  the  other  way,  with  his  or  her  back  to  the  akontist. 

Kylix  signed  by  Euergides  as  potter  (now  lost;  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1849,  pl-  M = 
Reinach,  i,  p.  281;  attr.  by  Rizzo,  Mon.  Piot,  xx,  p.  142,  to  Skythes). 

Almost  the  identical  group  occurs  on  a b.f.  lekythos  from  Gela  (Orsi,  Mon.  Ant. 
Line,  xvii  (1907),  p.  278,  fig.  204). 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


75 


E lo.  [PI.  XXVIII,  lower  picture]:  Hydria-Kalpis,  Brussels, 
R 227,  formerly  in  the  Musee  Raves tein,  now  Musee  de  Cin- 

Mus.  Ravestein,  i,  pp.  216-217,  No.  227. 

Mus.  etr.  533. 

Klein,  LL,  p.  124. 

Kretschmer,  p.  209. 

F.  R.  ii,  p.  71,  pi.  71. 

Buschor,  p.  153,  fig.  109. 

Shoulder  picture  only.  Two  youths  and  two 
hetairae  reclining  on  cushions  to  r.  The  latter 
are  nude  and  wear  long,  broad  fillets  in  their  hair.  The  youths 
wear  vine  wreaths  and  are  clad  in  long  mantles  from  the  waist 
down;  faint  suggestion  of  whiskers  on  the  cheek  of  the  youth  on 
the  r.  In  the  field  flute-case.  By  the  l.h.  group  rOVVVA[0:^] 
and  EAIV[V]A.  By  the  other  EKVI N E and  KVEOK PATE$^.  The 
couch  and  cushions  are  ornamented  with  a pattern.  All  in- 
scriptions retrograde. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions  and  wreaths.  Anatomical 
details  in  faint  lines.  Outline  of  hair  incised. 

Borders.  Frieze  of  r.f.  palmettos,  B i (e),  connecting  the  two 
handles  below  the  picture.  Below  the  picture,  A 7 ; sides,  A 8 (a) ; 
upper,  A 9.  The  form  of  the  vase  is  identical  with  that  of  E V. 

Furtwangler  (loc.  cit).  assigns  the  vase  to  Phintias.  It  must  be 
admitted  that  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  decide  whether  he  or 
Euthymides  is  the  author  since  not  only  is  the  execution  inferior 
to  the  work  of  both,  but  also  few  of  their  characteristic  touches 
are  to  be  seen.  I feel  disposed  to  assign  the  vase  to  Euthymides 
and  not  to  Phintias  for  the  following  reasons: 

The  form  is  that  of  E V,  and  Phintias,  as  far  as  we  know,  uses 
the  older  form  with  square  shoulder. 

The  main  frieze  is  a duplicate  of  the  upper  border  of  E I.^ 

The  heads  of  the  male  figures  resemble  very  strongly  those  on 
E IV,  while  the  female  heads  suggest  those  on  E ii. 

^ Identically  the  same  borders  are  to  be  found  on  the  Busiris  kalpis  in  Munich 
(F.  R.  pi,  73,2);  Louvre,  G 51  {Album,  ii,  pi.  94);  G 50  and  Munich  2427  (both 
attributed  to  the  Kleophrades  painter  by  Beazley,  /.  II.  S.  1910,  p.  52,  No.  15  and 
17:  the  two  last  have  the  same  r.f.  palmette  zone,  but  the  tops  are  pointed). 


quantenaire. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


76 

The  hands,  proportion  of  the  figures,  and  anatomical  details 
are  more  Euthymidean  than  Phintian. 

The  boldness  of  the  foreshortening,  which  though  not  entirely 
successful  is  still  noteworthy,  is  rather  superior  to  the  efforts  of 
Phintias  along  the  same  lines  and  quite  in  the  manner  of  Euthy- 
mides. 

A somewhat  similar  scene  is  to  be  found  on  a kalpis  in  Wiirz- 
burg  (Wolters,  Athen.  Mitt.  1905,  pi.  15).  Perhaps  the  most  not- 
able feature  is  the  preliminary  drawing  which  gave  the  artist  a 
good  deal  of  trouble.  The  heads  were  originally  drawn  within  the 
final  outline  and  several  studies  seem  to  have  been  made  before 
the  artist  was  satisfied.  This  fact,  together  with  the  rather  stiff 
drawing  would  seem  to  justify  Reichhold’s  statement  that  in  spite 
of  the  later  form  the  vase  ought  to  be  assigned  to  the  beginnings  of 
the  r.f.  style  rather  than  to  the  later  period  when  it  had  begun  to 
develop. 

All  the  figures  are  identified  by  names  which  possess  little 
interest.  The  name  of  Sekline  is  used  by  Euphronios  on  the 
Petrograd  psykter  for  one  of  the  hetairae  and  as  Robert  has  shown 
{Hermes,  1905,  p.  480)  is  merely  an  abbreviation  of  H7]Kv\Lvrj 
which  again  is  a diminutive  of  l^rjKvXr].  Furtwangler’s  idea  that 
the  name  is  used  as  a nickname  (loc.  cit.  vol.  ii,  p.  71,  note  5) 
was  retracted  by  him  later. 

The  two  following  vases  belong  also  to  a class  by  themselves 
and  must  be  considered  together.  Their  shapes,  decoration,  and 
stylistic  features  are  so  exactly  identical  that  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  both  are  from  the  same  workshop.  Also,  as  will  be 
seen  later,  they  show  all  the  elements  of  Euthymides’  style  so 
clearly  that  there  need  be  little  hesitation  in  assigning  both  to 
his  atelier.^  As  their  execution  is  slightly  inferior  to  that  of  the 
signed  vases  we  may  hesitate  to  regard  them  as  actually  from  his 
very  hand  though  as  already  remarked  that  point  is  not  sufficient 
to  warrant  us  in  denying  his  authorship  entirely. 

^ The  Vienna  pelike  I have  not  been  able  to  examine.  Some  time  before  I dis- 
covered that  others  had  attributed  the  Florence  vase  to  Euthymides  I had  satisfied 
myself  by  a careful  personal  examination  that  it  was  certainly  a work  of  his  atelier. 


Plate  XXII 


Vienna  333  (E  ii) 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES  77 

Eli.  [PL  XXII]  Pelike,  Vienna.  K.  K.  Oesterreich.  Mus. 

fiir  Kunstu.  Industrie,  No.  333:  h.  m.  0.35. 

Masner,  Katalog,  333,  p.  50. 

Mon.  d.  Inst,  viii,  15,  i = Reinach  i,  p.  169. 

W.  F.  i,  I.  Baumeister  ii,  p.  1114,  fig.  1311. 

Robert,  Bild  u.  Lied,  p.  1 54. 

Roscher’s  Lex.  iii,  971;  cf.  ii,  1241,  i;  cf.  also  Brunn,  Bull.  dell.  Inst. 
1865,  214. 

Benndorf,  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1865,  212. 

Brunn,  Troische  Miscellen,  iv  {Sitzungsher.  der  Bayer.  Akad.  1887), 
p.  264  ff. 

Milani,  Mus.  Ital.  Clas.  iii,  p.  249,  2. 

Hartwig,  p.  191  ff.  (attributed  to  Phintias). 

F.  R.  ii,  pp.  75-81,  pi.  72. 

Hackl,  p.  36,  No.  357. 

Per.  et  Chip,  x,  p.  596. 

A.  Murder  of  Aegisthus.  In  center,  Orestes,  as  a youth  with 
faint  whiskers,  clad  in  a short  chiton  and  cuirass  with  a sword 
belt  around  his  r.  shoulder,  body  and  legs  full  front,  head  in 
profile  to  1.,  clasps  with  his  1.  hand  the  1.  shoulder  of  Aegisthus 
while  with  his  r.  he  stabs  him  with  his  sword.  Blood  is  flowing 
from  the  wound  and  also  from  a second  wound  under  the  1. 
breast.  Aegisthus,  bearded  and  nude,  save  for  a cloak  draped 
about  his  waist  and  upper  limbs,  wears  a fillet  in  his  hair. 
His  torso  and  1.  leg  are  seen  full  front,  his  head,  arms,  and  r.  leg 
in  profile.  With  his  r.  hand  he  grasps  the  1.  shoulder  of  Orestes 
endeavoring  to  ward  off  the  attack  and  save  himself  from  being 
dragged  off  the  throne  on  which  he  has  been  sitting,  and 
stretches  out  his  1.  arm.  The  throne  is  seen  full  front.  Under 
the  seat  A 1/ 1^00:^,  above  Orestes’  harm  0PE^TE$^.  At  the  1. 
of  the  group  a female  figure  advancing  to  1.  in  profile,  raising  both 
arms  in  an  attitude  of  entreaty  obviously  to  the  figure  advancing 
on  the  reverse.  She  is  clad  in  a long  Ionic  chiton  with  kolpos 
and  wears  earrings,  stephane,  and  bracelets.  Her  r.  foot  projects 
into  the  1.  border.  Along  her  r.  leg  (retrograde)  KPV5^O0EM  1:^. 

B.  Continuation  of  same  scene.  To  the  r.  a female  figure  in 
profile,  advancing  to  r.  clad  in  a long  Ionic  chiton  with  kolpos, 
wearing  earrings  and  a band  in  her  hair.  In  both  hands  she  holds 
the  handle  of  a double-axe.  Along  the  r.h.  border  KVVTAI- 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


78 


Fig.  10 


M E^TPA  {sic!).  Behind  her,  also  advancing  to  r.  an  old  bearded 
man,  clad  in  a short  chiton  and  cloak  with  a pilos  on  his  head. 
With  his  r.  he  holds  the  head  of  the  axe,  while  his  1.  grasps  the 
1.  arm  of  Klytemnaestra.  Beside  him  GAVGVBIO^. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  blood,  fillets,  bracelets,  and 
sword-belt.  Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines.  Outline  of  hair 
reserved. 

Borders.  Obverse,  lower,  two  parallel  stripes  in  purple;  sides, 
A 8 (a);  upper,  B 2 (^).  Reverse,  lower,  same  as  obverse;  no 
border  at  sides;  upper,  A 4 {h).  Graffito  on  base,  v.  Fig.  10. 

An  interesting  peculiarity  is  that  the  vase 
during  the  process  of  baking,  was  placed  next 
to  another  vase  so  closely  that  it  received  the 
impression  of  a figure  on  the  latter.  That  this 
vase  now  lost,  belongs  to  the  same  hand  as  the 
pelike  a comparison  of  the  style  would  seem  to 
make  evident  {v.  Furtwangler,  loc.  cit.  p.  80). 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  subject-matter  of  this  vase  has 
been  so  thoroughly  discussed  by  Furtwangler  we  may  spare 
ourselves  any  further  repetition  except  to  remark  in  passing  that 
his  suggestion  (loc.  cit.  p.  75)  that  the  group,  considering  its 
variance  in  treatment  from  the  later  vases,  probably  derived 
its  inspiration  from  some  well-known  painting  executed  prior  to 
500  B.c.  (to  which  date  we  may  approximately  assign  our  vase) 
has  much  to  be  said  in  its  favor. 

The  heads  follow  the  usual  Euthymidean  proportion  of  one- 
seventh.  The  head  of  Aegisthus  especially  resembles  very  strongly 
most  of  the  bearded  heads  on  the  signed  vases  while  that  of  Chry- 
sothemis  is  strikingly  like  the  head  of  Korone  on  E III.  The  eye- 
brows and  eyes  are  very  Euthymidean  and  the  use  of  eyelashes 
in  the  head  of  Aegisthus  is  paralleled  by  those  of  Theseus  on 
E III.  The  mouths  differ  from  those  we  have  seen  in  the  signed 
vases  in  that  they  are  slightly  open,  but  this  peculiarity  will  be 
seen  in  the  three  kylixes  E 13-15.  The  neck  muscles  are  those 
used  by  him  and  the  collar  bones  have  the  same  form,  and  only 
differ  in  being  drawn  in  relief  instead  of  faint  lines.  The  torso  of 
Aegisthus  with  the  little  diamonds  at  the  division  of  the  muscles 


Plate  XXIII 


Florence  3985  (E  12) 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


79 


can  be  duplicated  in  any  nude  figure  on  the  signed  vases,  and  the 
nipples  are  exactly  like  those  of  Phayllos  on  E IV.  The  fingers 
have  no  nails.  On  Orestes’  hand  the  knuckles  are  indicated  more 
definitely  than  is  the  case  on  the  signed  vases.  The  legs  of 
Orestes  and  Aegisthus  seen  full  front  are  matched  by  the  leg  of 
Theseus  on  E III.  The  ankles  are  denoted  by  faint  lines,  and  we 
have  the  characteristic  Euthymidean  touch  in  the  separation  of 
the  big  toe  from  the  ball  of  the  foot.  The  drapery  shows  the  same 
arrangement  of  faint  lines  radiating  from  a central  point  (the 
only  difference  to  be  seen  from  the  usual  treatment  of  Euthymides 
consists  in  the  chiton  being  bordered  by  three,  instead  of  two 
lines),  and  the  cloaks  fall  in  the  Euthymidean  manner. 

The  upper  border  of  the  obverse  represents  an  entirely  new 
motive  in  the  work  of  Euthymides. 

E 12.  [PI.  XXIII]:  Pelike  in  Florence,  Arch.  Museum,  No. 

3985- 

Milani,  Mus.  Ant.  Ital.  Clas.  hi,  pi.  iv,  p.  245  = Reinach  i,  p.  530. 

Milani,  Mus.  Arch.  Firenze,  p.  152. 

F.  R.  ii,  p.  81,  fig.  44. 

Amelung,  Fiihrer,  p.  237. 

Benndorf,  Bull.  d.  Inst.  1865,  pp.  156  ff.,  n.  i. 

Ely,  J.  H.  S.  1888,  pp.  272  ff.  n.  6. 

Wernicke,  Jhh.  1892,  pp.  211-213,  n.  9,  8. 

Roscher,  iv,  p.  1012. 

The  vase  is  in  poor  condition,  a number  of  fragments  being 
missing.  None  of  the  integral  parts  are  wanting,  however. 

A.  In  center,  Theseus  to  r.  seizes  the  Minotaur  with  his  1. 
while  with  his  r.  he  plunges  his  sword  into  the  monster’s  r.  breast. 
He  is  clad  in  a short  chiton  with  a cloak  draped  about  his  waist. 
The  Minotaur,  represented  in  the  usual  fashion,  nude,  with  a 
bull’s  head,  has  fallen  upon  his  1.  knee  and  supports  himself 
with  his  1.  hand  while  grasping  the  r.  shoulder  of  Theseus  with 
his  r.,  in  his  endeavor  to  ward  him  off.  Underneath  his  r.  arm 
At  the  r.  of  the  group  two  female  figures  clad  in  long- 
sleeved  chitons  and  cloaks  thrown  over  their  shoulders,  holding 
their  hands  aloft  in  an  attitude  of  astonishment.  The  one  in  front 
wears  earrings  and  a fillet  in  her  hair.  Behind  Theseus  a youth 


8o 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


to  r.  draped  in  a long  cloak  which  leaves  the  r.  shoulder  bare, 
likewise  raising  his  r.  arm.  He  wears  a vine  wreath  in  his  hair. 

B.  Theseus  and  Skiron.  Theseus,  a nude  youth,  strides  to  r. 
and  grasps  with  his  r.  hand  the  r.  foot  of  Skiron  while  seizing  him 
on  the  r.  side  under  the  shoulder  with  his  1.  hand.  Skiron  totters 
forward  and  endeavors  to  support  himself  with  his  outstretched 
1.  hand  while  his  r.  rests  on  a rock  behind  him.  Immediately 
beneath  him  the  lebes.  Over  Skiron’s  r.  arm  KAVVI^TO^.  Behind 
the  r.  arm  of  Theseus  NVfE.^ 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  fillet,  wreath,  and  blood  of 
the  Minotaur.  Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines.  The  borders  are 
identically  the  same  as  on  the  Vienna  pelike  except  that  the  sides 
have  a dotted  net  pattern  instead  of  a key. 

Only  the  figure  of  Theseus  on  the  obverse  is  identified  by  an 
inscription.  On  the  reverse  KoWiaros  offers  no  difficulty,  but  the 
word  wye  makes  no  sense.  From  the  fact  that  evye  occurs  on 
the  obverse  of  E IV  it  is  very  possible  that  the  painter  intended 
to  write  the  same  word  here. 

Little  need  be  said  as  to  the  subject-matter  of  both  pictures. 
The  treatment  of  the  Minotaur  legend  on  the  obverse  differs  in 
no  way  from  that  usually  employed  in  most  of  the  vases  of  both 
the  b.  and  r.f.  styles.  Although  the  inscriptions  are  wanting  it 
is  very  probable  that  one  of  the  female  figures  here  represented  is 
Ariadne,  while  the  figure  of  the  youth  behind  Theseus  must  be 
that  of  his  companion  Perithous.  Nor  does  the  version  of  the 
Skiron  myth  vary  materially  from  the  usual  form  except  that 
the  tortoise,  which  seems  to  have  been  an  integral  part  of  the 
legend,  is  here  wanting. 

As  in  the  case  of  E 1 1 so  here  do  all  the  elements  of  Euthymides’ 
style  stand  out  clearly.  The  heads  follow  the  usual  proportion; 
those  of  the  female  figures  are  very  similar  to  the  heads  of  the 
female  figures  on  E ii,  while  that  of  Theseus  on  the  obverse  is 
surprisingly  like  that  of  Theseus  on  E IV.  The  eyebrows,  eyes, 
noses,  mouths,  chins,  ears,  fillets,  and  wreaths  are  entirely  Eu- 
thymidean.  The  necks,  collar  bones,  anatomical  details  of  the 

1 The  inscription  is  not  K A V E as  Furtwangler  has  it  (loc.  cit.  p.  8i,  note  i),  but 
NvrE  as  I have  satisfied  myself  by  a very  careful  personal  examination  of  the  vase. 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


8i 


torsos  and  the  diamond  on  the  thighs  are  in  his  style  and  so  is  the 
scrotum,  except  that  the  triple  division  is  wanting.  The  fingers 
show  no  trace  of  nails  and  the  big  toe  is  separated  from  the  ball 
of  the  foot.  The  drapery,  except  that  like  E ii  the  chitons  have 
three  lines  at  the  border  of  the  neck  and  are  without  faint  lines, 
differs  little  from  that  seen  on  the  signed  vases. 

E 13.  [Fig.  ii]  Kylix,  Athens,  National  Museum,  C.  C.  1157 
(1628).  From  Tanagra:  h.  m.  0.08;  d.  m.  0.19.  Inside  pic- 
ture only. 

Cat.  (C.C.)  p.  357. 

Hartwig,  p.  183,  pi.  xvii,  No.  3. 

Deltion,  1888,  p.  126  /5;  153,  No.  59. 

B.  P.  W.  1888,  pp.  1234,  1331. 

Jones,  J.  H.  S.  1891,  p.  371. 

Chase,  p.  103,  90,  No.  6. 


Fig.  II 


Youthful  warrior  wearing  whiskers,  crouching  on  the  ground,^ 
in  the  act  of  adjusting  his  helmet  (Attic)  or  possibly  removing 
it  with  his  r.  while  with  his  1.  he  holds  his  shield  (device,  an 

^ The  position  of  the  legs  is  akin  to  that  of  a youth  on  the  Epidromos  kylix  in 
the  British  Museum  (E  25)  assigned  by  Hartwig  (loc.  cit.  pp.  44,  46-47,  pi.  hi,  i) 
to  Chachrylion,  which  does  not  resemble  E 13  in  point  of  style  though  it  is  note- 
worthy that  the  formula  /caX6s  vaixt-t  is  used  on  it. 


82 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


octopus) . He  is  nude  except  for  a small  cloak  looped  about  his 
waist,  and  greaves.  His  spear  is  planted  in  the  ground  beside  him. 
Around  the  border  of  the  picture  is  the  signature  «t>INTIA^ 
ELOIE^EN. 

The  glaze  is  rather  thin  and  of  a brownish  tinge.  Purple  is 
used  for  the  inscriptions  and  anatomical  details  in  faint  lines. 
The  relief  lines  are  very  sharp  and  clear.  Hair  outline  reserved. 
According  to  Hartwig  the  kylix  possesses  the  peculiarity  of  hav- 
ing the  axis  of  the  picture  in  line  with  that  of  the  handles  instead 
of  at  right  angles  as  is  generally  the  case.^ 

E 14.  [Fig.  12]:  Kylix,  Berlin  2304.  From  Corneto:  h.  m. 
0.09;  d.m.  0.225.  Inside  picture  only. 

Gerhard,  Trink.  u.  Gef.  pis.  vi,  vii,  p.  8,  no.  5. 

Panofka,  Eigennamen  mit  koXos,  pi.  iv,  4. 

Hartwig,  pp.  186-188,  pi.  xviii,  2.  Klein,  LI.,  p.  97. 

Benndorf,  Ephem.  Arch.  1887,  p.  123. 

Chase,  p.  109,  136,  No.  10. 


A warrior,  nude,  save  for  a small  cloak  looped  around  his  waist, 
and  Attic  helmet,  hastening  to  r.;  legs  in  profile,  body  seen  from 

1 Cf.  Houssaye’s  very  interesting  article  on  this  feature  in  the  Rev.  Arch.  1912, 
i,  pp.  60-83.  This  kylix,  however,  is  not  included  in  the  list  there  given. 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


83 

behind,  and  head  in  profile  to  1.  In  his  1.  he  holds  a shield  (seen 
in  profile;  device,  horse  in  silhouette),  and  probably  held  in  his 
missing  r.  a stone  or  sword.  His  mouth  is  open.  Above  and 
below  an  arrow.  Evidently  the  warrior  is  attempting  to  escape 
an  attack  by  archers.  In  the  field  4>[I]NTIA5^  KA 

Preliminary  drawing  quite  prominent  and  evidently  a different 
arrangement  of  the  drapery  was  planned.  Anatomical  details  in 
faint  lines.  Encircling  the  picture  A 8 (b).  Part  of  the  r.  side  of 
the  kylix  is  missing.  ^ 

E 15.  [ Eig.  13  ] : Kylix,  Leipzig  (formerly  in  Hauser’s  collection 
in  Stuttgart).  Provenience  unknown:  h.  m.  0.065;  d.  m.  0.19. 
Inside  picture  only. 

Hartwig,  pp.  184-186,  pi.  xviii,  i. 


Youthful  athlete,  nude  save  for  a small  cloak  looped  around 
his  waist  as  in  the  two  previous  vases,  and  a pilos  on  his  head, 

^ Furtwangler  {Cat.  p.  605)  gives  a facsimile  of  the  inscription  and  reads  it 
ANTIA^  KAVO^.  But  the  space  requires  an  extra  letter,  and  in  view  of  the 
extraordinary  similarity  between  this  kylix  and  E 13  and  15  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  Hartwig’s  reading  is  correct. 

^ Hartwig  alone  mentions  this  fact.  It  must  be  acknowledged,  though  it  would 
invalidate  the  theory  to  be  advanced  shortly,  that  the  missing  part  of  the  vase 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


84 

crouches  to  1.  in  the  act  of  discharging  a slingd  He  wears  a slight 
beard.  Double  stripe  around  the  picture. 

The  glaze  has  been  badly  worn.  Drawing  very  sure  and 
anatomical  details  in  faint  lines.  In  the  field  traces  of  an  illegible 
inscription  which  was  probably  6 vrats  /caXos. 

An  interesting  peculiarity  of  the  vase  is  the  error  on  the  part 
of  the  artist  which  has  resulted  in  the  interchange  of  hands,  the 
r.  being  on  the  1.  wrist  and  vice-versa;  also  the  eyebrow  has  been 
omitted. 

The  three  kylixes  just  described  are  assigned  by  Hartwig  to 
Phintias.^  With  this  attribution  I cannot  agree,  since,  in  my 
opinion  they  not  only  fail  to  correspond  with  the  style  of  Phintias 
as  shown  by  the  four  vases  signed  by  him  as  painter,  but  differ 
from  it  radically;  on  the  other  hand  they  seem  to  me  to  bear  a 
strong  resemblance  to  that  of  Euthymides.  It  may  be  regarded 
as  certain  that  the  three  are  by  the  same  hand  since  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  cloak  is  identical  in  all. 

The  head  of  the  warrior  on  E 13  is  practically  a duplicate  of 
the  heads  of  Theseus  on  E III  and  IV ; the  ear  shows  the  charac- 
teristic meeting  of  the  two  curved  lines  seen  on  the  signed  vases. 
The  helmets,  though  Attic,  have  the  same  crest  border  and  tail 
piece  as  Hector’s  helmet  on  E I,  while  the  motive  of  adjusting 
it  on  E 13  is  like  that  on  E 2.  Only  half  of  the  shield  device  is 
seen  as  on  E II.  The  ends  of  the  cloaks  fall  like  those  worn  by 
the  komasts  on  E I,  and  the  foreshortened  backs  of  E 14  and  15 

might  have  contained  an  ’iypa\p€v  as  well  as  the  name  to  which  /caXos  belonged. 
If  the  perimeter  of  the  circle  be  completed,  the  missing  arrow-head,  hand,  and  foot 
of  the  warrior  be  supplied  to  scale  and  the  verb  eypaxpev  added,  spacing  the  letters 
as  in  the  existing  inscription,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  just  room  for  the  verb, 
but  that  the  final  sigma  of  koXos  would  almost  touch  it  and  leave  no  space  for  an 
additional  name.  Since  in  my  opinion,  however,  the  style  of  the  vase  forbids  its 
attribution  to  Phintias  I do  not  regard  the  suggested  restoration  as  very  probable. 

^ The  sling  is  omitted,  but  the  action  would  seem  certain.  For  reference  to 
various  illustrations  of  slings  cf.  Hartwig,  loc.  cit.  p.  185,  note  i. 

2 Hartwig  (loc.  cit.  p.  188,  pi.  xviii,  3)  also  describes  the  fragment  of  a kylix  in 
Hauser’s  possession  on  which  the  figure  of  Apollo  (?)  riding  on  a swan  is  represented, 
which  he  includes  with  the  kylixes  in  his  list  of  Phintias  attributions.  To  my  mind 
the  fragment  does  not  possess  sufficiently  defined  characteristics  to  warrant  its 
attribution  to  any  known  master,  and  hence  it  has  not  been  included  by  me  in 
the  list  of  vases  assigned  to  either  Phintias  or  Euthymides. 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


8S 


distinctly  suggest  the  central  komast  on  that  vase;  we  have  no 
certain  instance  of  any  such  foreshortening  in  the  work  of  Phin- 
tias.  The  ankles  are  not  denoted  at  all  or  if  anything  only  sug- 
gested as  is  the  custom  of  Euthymides,  but  not  of  Phintias,  who 
is  rather  careful  in  his  delineation  of  ankles;  also  there  is  no 
trace  of  the  use  of  either  finger-  or  toe-nails,  which  are  seldom 
omitted  by  Phintias.  The  swing  of  the  cloak  with  its  tassel  on 
E 14  is  more  like  those  worn  by  Theseus  and  Perithous  on  E III 
than  on  P II  which  among  the  vases  signed  by  Phintias  alone 
affords  a similar  case. 

In  short,  there  is  not  one  detail  mentioned  by  Hartwig  as 
characteristic  of  Phintias  that  is  not  peculiar  to  Euthymides  as 
well,^  while  there  are  several  characteristics  of  Euthymides  which 
we  do  not  find  in  the  work  of  Phintias.  Aside  from  such  details, 
the  general  style,  to  my  mind,  is  far  more  suggestive  of  Euthy- 
mides than  of  Phintias. 

In  addition,  Hartwig  has  emphasized  the  fact  that  a group  of 
kylixes  with  Xatptas  ko\6s  have  a peculiar  open  kappa  and  omi- 
cron.  The  Berlin  kylix  of  the  three  alone  shows  a kappa  which 
is  open  and  even  that  bears  a very  slight  resemblance  to  the  open 
kappas  of  the  Louvre  and  Van  Branteghem  kylixes.  Certainly 
the  Baltimore  kylix,  which  is  the  only  one  bearing  Phintias’  signa- 
ture with  the  name  of  Chairias,  shows  no  such  open  letter  and 
considering  that  some  names  are  the  common  property  of  several 
artists  it  might  equally  well  be  argued  that  the  different  forms  of 
the  letters  on  the  Chairias  group  would  preclude  their  being 
assigned  to  the  hand  of  Phintias. 

But  it  is  precisely  the  inscriptional  evidence  which  seems  to  me 
to  turn  the  scale  against  Phintias.  I have  already  pointed  out 
(p.  26)  that  the  signature  with  ewoLr]aev  does  not  tell  us  who 
was  the  painter  and,  further,  that  it  is  not  the  habit  of  vase- 
painters  to  sign  their  own  names  with  ko\6s.  Thus,  in  view  of 
the  similarity  of  the  three  cups  with  the  style  of  Euthymides,  it 
seems  to  me  far  more  likely  that  he  was  the  painter  of  them,  and 
that  E 13  was  dedicated  by  him  to  his  associate  in  reciprocal 

^ Except  possibly  that  on  the  Berlin  kylix  the  mouth  of  the  warrior  is  open  as  is 
the  case  with  the  maenad  on  the  Come  to  amphora. 


86 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


fashion  to  the  formulae  on  P i and  3.  I have  already  commented 
on  this  point  at  length  on  p.  35. 

E 16.  [PL  XXIV]:  Plate.  Boston,  Museum  of  Fine  Arts, 
00.335.  Formerly  in  the  Bruschi  collection  and  said  to  come 
from  Vulci:  d.  m.  0.17.  Form  approximately  Berl,  CataloguCj 
pi.  vi,  202. 

Ann.  Rep.  Mus.  F.  A.  1900,  p.  35,  No.  4. 

Saucer-like  Dish  with  Ring  Base.  A female  figure  hasten- 
ing to  r.  while  looking  backwards.  She  wears  an  Ionic  chiton, 
with  kolpos,  saccos,  stephane,  and  earrings.  In  each  hand  she 
holds  a dolphin  by  the  tail  and  beside  her  in  the  field  are  two  more. 
On  left  side,  incised  and  retrograde  ©ETE^.  Around  rim  A 10. 

In  rim  above  the  head  of  the  figure  two  holes  for  suspension. 
On  exterior  three  black  circles  as  decoration,  one  around  edge 
of  rim,  second  around  juncture  of  rim  and  body,  and  the  third 
around  base.  Space  enclosed  by  rim  base  is  black.  The  plate 
has  been  repaired  with  slight  restorations,  and  the  upper  part  of 
the  figure  has  been,  unfortunately,  slightly  defaced. 

The  inscription  has  been  questioned  since  the  assimilation  of 
the  second  vowel  and  the  incision  with  a sharp  instrument  are 
both  unusual.  The  genuineness  and  provenience  are,  however, 
beyond  question,  so  that  the  inscription  may  very  possibly  have 
been  added  by  the  Etruscan  owner. 

There  need  be  little  hesitation  in  assigning  this  plate  to  Euthy- 
mides.  We  have  already  the  Bocchi  plate  signed  by  him,  and 
the  border  of  that,  though  differing  very  slightly  is  practically 
identical  with  the  border  here,  and  constitutes  a decorative  pat- 
tern which  I have  not  yet  found  elsewhere.  Further,  the  female 
figure  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a duplicate  of  the  figure  of 
Antiopea  on  E III  as  may  be  seen  from  the  Plate  in  which  the 
head  of  Antiopea,  for  the  sake  of  comparison,  has  been  reversed. 
The  similarity  between  the  profiles,  hoods,  ears,  earrings,  hair, 
mouths,  and  chins  is  certainly  extremely  striking.  The  breasts, 
with  their  large  nipple  project  in  the  same  way  (as  also  in  the 
figure  of  Hecuba  on  E I)  while  the  chitons  with  the  legs  showing 


Plate  XXIV 


Detail  of  Munich  2309,  reverse 


Boston  00.335  (E  16) 


1 


I 


4 


i 


1 


i 


I 


- 1 
4 
4 


4 


i 


i 

i 

4 


1 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


87 


through  the  under  garment  are  the  same  and  have  two  lines  at 
the  neck  as  is  usual.  In  addition,  the  feet  of  the  figure  here, 
with  the  big  toe  separated  from  the  ball  of  the  foot,  are  distinctly 
Euthymidean.  We  may  also  notice  what  is  characteristic  of  the 
artist,  the  very  symmetrical  way  in  which  the  four  dolphins  are 
arranged  about  the  center  of  the  plate  and  the  charming  liveli- 
ness of  the  figure. 

That  the  inscription  belongs  to  the  vase  as  it  left  the  painter’s 
hands,  is  very  improbable.  We  have  no  case  of  an  incised  inscrip- 
tion in  Euthymides’  work,  nor,  for  that  matter,  in  any  unsigned 
vase,  and  it  is  not  a usual  feature  at  this  time  to  incise  inscrip- 
tions except  in  the  case  of  signatures  like  Hieron’s.  The  identifi- 
cation of  the  figure  as  some  marine  divinity  and  most  probably 
Thetis  seems  to  be  correct,  in  view  of  the  dolphins. 

E 17.  [Fig  14]:  Fragment  of  Kylix,  Boston,  Museum  of 
Fine  Arts,  10.203.  Provenance  unknown,  but  probably  from 
Italy:  h.  m.  0.04. 

Head  and  both  arms  of  a youth  to  r.  with  a vine  wreath  in  his 
hair  and  holding  a laurel  wreath  in  both  hands.  Around  his 

upper  r.  arm  what  seems  to  be  a cord 
is  tied.  In  front  of  him  the  leg  of  a 
couch. 

Purple  is  used  for  both  wreaths.  Out- 
line of  hair  reserved.  The  reverse  of 
the  fragment  shows  a polished  red  slip. 

The  fragment  is  assigned  to  Euthy- 
mides by  Beazley  to  whom  I am  greatly 
indebted  for  the  photograph  of  the 
drawing.  A comparison  of  the  curved 
fingers  and  the  manner  in  which  the 
wreath  is  held  with  the  central  figure 
on  the  reverse  of  E 6 makes  Beazley ’s  attribution  probable; 
while  the  head,  barring  the  lack  of  incision  and  the  use  of  a vine 
wreath  instead  of  a flower  wreath,  is  virtually  a duplicate  of 
the  head  of  Phayllos  on  E IV  which  also  has  the  same  little 
bunch  of  hair  over  the  forehead. 


88 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


The  fragment  is  certainly  from  a kylix  and  the  space  immedi- 
ately above  the  head  was  probably  occupied  by  the  junction  of  a 
handle  now  broken  away.  But  the  subject  is  very  puzzling.  The 
curve  of  the  lower  stripe  makes  it  probable  that  the  youth  was 
lying  on  the  ground  immediately  below  the  handle,  and  the  leg  of 
the  couch  clearly  indicates  a symposium,  but  for  the  scene  we 
find  no  parallel.  Since  the  reverse  is  red  and  the  fragment  belongs 
to  the  outer  diameter  of  a kylix  and  a central  picture  must  have 
existed  (though  we  frequently  find  r.f.  kylixes  with  only  a central 
picture  and  none  on  the  exterior,  the  contrary  is  seldom  true),  it 
must  have  been  a small  one  bordered  by  a stripe  which  indicates 
that  the  kylix  belongs  to  the  Epiktetan  cycle. 

E i8.  [Fig.  15]:  Fragment,  Louvre,  G31. 

Cat.  iii,  p.  903. 

A nude  youth  to  r.  holding  a halter  in  his  r.  Beside  his  arm 
RO^.  Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines. 


Fig.  15 

The  shape  is  uncertain.  Pettier  calls  it  a fragment  of  an  am- 
phora though  it  might  just  as  well  belong  to  either  a psykter  or  a 
pelike. 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


89 

The  fragment  is  assigned  to  Euthymides  by  Beazley  ^ to  whom 
I am  greatly  indebted  for  a photograph  of  the  tracing  (the  photo- 
graph has  unfortunately  reversed  the  fragment) . With  this  attri- 
bution I agree  heartily  since  the  linea  alba  in  relief  line,  the 
modelling  of  the  abdominal  muscles  and  above  all  the  triple  divi- 
sion of  the  scrotum  make  it  fairly  certain  that  the  fragment  comes 
from  a vase  by  Euthymides.  The  position  of  the  figure  is  very 
much  like  that  of  Kerkyon  on  E IV.  The  inscription  is  signifi- 
cant since  it  can  only  be  restored  as  [Aeayjpos  which  we  have 
already  seen  on  E 9.  What  is  peculiar  is  that  the  Ionic  rho  and 
the  four-barred  sigma  occur  for  the  first  time  in  Euthymides’ 
work. 

E 19.  [Fig.  16]:  PiNAX,  Athens,  Acropolis  Museum.  Found  on 

the  Acropolis  in  1885:  h.  m.  0.39;  d.  m.  0.52;  th.  m.  0.06. 

Benndorf,  Ephem.  Arch.  1887,  pp.  1 15-130,  pi.  vi  = Reinach  i,  p. 
513,  No.  6. 

Jones,  J.  H.  S.  1891,  p.  380. 

Miller,  A.  J.  A.  1886,  p.  64  ff.  (wrong  reading  of  the  inscription). 

Studniczka,  Jhh.  1887,  pp.  149,  note  49,  161. 

Winter,  Jhh.  1887,  p.  229,  note  3 (comments  on  the  resemblance  to  the 
work  of  Euthymides). 

Class.  Rev.  1888,  p.  188. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  pp.  23,  x;  37. 

Walters,  i,  p.  428. 

Rlein,  LI.,  p.  120,  No.  4. 

Bulle,  Der  schone  Mensch,  p.  612,  pi.  300. 

Youthful  warrior  to  1.  (legs  missing  from  below  thighs),  nude, 
save  for  a small  cloak  draped  about  the  waist,  wearing  an  Attic 
helmet  and  carrying  a shield  (device  in  silhouette,  dancing  silen) 
in  his  1.  and  his  spear  in  his  r. 

The  warrior’s  flesh  and  the  handle  of  the  spear  are  in  dark 
brown,  the  cloak  and  shield  device  in  black,  which  is  also  used 

1 Beazley  also  assigns  to  Euthymides  a second  fragment  in  the  Louvre  (S  1317), 
and  has  very  kindly  sent  me  a tracing  of  it.  It  comes  from  a large  vessel  of  the 
same  order  as  that  to  which  E i8  belongs  and  likewise  has  on  it  part  of  the  figure 
of  a nude  athlete.  It  is  very  possible  that  it  belongs  to  the  same  vessel. 

I have  examined  the  fragment  very  carefully  but  as  I am  unable  to  find  any 
feature  which  is  especially  characteristic  of  Euthymides  I have  not  included  it  in 
the  list  of  attributions. 


90  EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 

for  the  anatomical  details.  The  crest  of  the  helmet  is  bordered 
in  red.  The  picture  is  framed  by  a broad  red  stripe  and  outside 
of  that  another  stripe  of  black. 

Running  along  the  upper  edge  and  divided  by  the  warrior’s 
head  is  the  inscription  in  red  MEAAKVE:^  KAVO:^.  Subsequent 


to  the  painting  of  the  pinax  the  name  of  Megakles  was  erased 
and  that  of  Glaukytes  substituted  in  bright  red  paint,  the  letters 
rather  coarse,  of  which  A/ AV[K]V[T]  E^  can  clearly  be  read. 
(Facsimile  of  the  inscription  on  pp.  119  and  122  of  Benndorf’s 
article.) 

Benndorf  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  name  Mega- 
kles is  that  used  by  both  Phintias  and  Euthymides,  and  while 
not  venturing  to  assign  the  pinax  to  the  hand  of  any  particular 
artist,  places  it  in  the  period  of  Chachrylion  and  Epiktetos. 
Jones  assigns  it  provisionally  to  Euthymides  as  does  Winter, 
with  which  opinion  I concurred.  On  the  other  hand  Walters 
regards  it  as  doubtful  in  default  of  definite  proof  that  the  vase- 
painters  ever  painted  pinakes. 


Fig.  16 


THE  ATTRIBUTED  VASES 


91 


It  is  true  that  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  they  ever 
painted  pinakes,  but  it  is  equally  true  that  no  evidence  exists 
to  show  that  they  did  not  do  so,  and  owing  to  the  lack  of  any 
such  testimony,  pro  or  con,  no  conclusions  can  be  drawn,  though 
antecedent  probability  would  naturally  argue  that  if  any  one 
besides  the  regular  fresco  painters  did  paint  pinakes  he  would 
be  more  apt  to  have  been  a vase-painter  than  a member  of  another 
handicraft. 

The  Acropolis  pinax  is  certainly  a work  of  some  artist  of  the 
Epiktetan  cycle  whether  vase-painter  or  not.  Further,  the  use  of 
the  name  Megakles  narrows  the  execution  of  the  pinax  down  to 
the  first  decade  of  the  fifth  century,  and  Phintias  and  Euthymides 
are  the  only  vase-painters  who  have  used  that  name.  As  far  as 
the  style  of  the  figure  is  concerned  it  shows  certain  resemblances 
to  the  work  of  both  artists. 

The  warrior  is  to  all  intents  a duplicate  of  that  on  E 14, 
especially  for  the  helmet  and  the  drapery,  as  was  pointed  out  by 
Benndorf.  Further,  the  shield  device  is  a duplicate  of  that  on  the 
shield  of  Thorykion  on  E II.  In  view  of  these  facts  it  is  certainly 
easier  to  consider  Euthymides  as  the  artist  than  not. 


In  addition  to  the  various  vases  mentioned  above  which  have 
been  assigned  to  Euthymides  by  Beazley,  the  following ^ are  also 
attributed  by  him  to  that  artist. 

Fragments  in  Leipzig.  Lower  parts  of  Dionysos  between 
maenad  and  silen;  head  of  youth  and  . . . lEIV. 

Hydria,  Petrograd  (Stephani  1624).  Dionysos  seated  attended 
by  silen  and  maenad. 

PsYKTER,  Compiegne.  Dionysos,  Herakles,  and  Silens.  Ger- 
hard, Aus.  Vas.  pis.  59-60. 

Plate,  Boston,  13.193.  Silen  and  koXos  name  of  Hestiaios. 

The  fragments  in  Leipzig  I have  not  seen  nor  have  I been  able 
to  obtain  a photograph  of  them.  The  Petrograd  hydria  and  the 

^ I am  able  to  give  the  accompanying  list,  thanks  to  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Beazley, 
who  has  allowed  me  to  see  the  proofs  of  his  book  Vases  in  America.,  which  is  very 
shortly  to  appear. 


92 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Compiegne  psykter  I know  only  from  Beazley’s  tracings  as 
the  drawing  in  the  Auserlesene  Vasenbilder  is  well-nigh  worthless. 
The  Boston  plate  I have  examined  with  considerable  care. 

I cannot  agree  withBeazley  in  these  attributions,  for  not  only 
do  the  three  vases  fail  to  exhibit  to  my  eyes  what  I should  con- 
sider the  especially  Euthymidean  characteristics,  but  the  scale  of 
proportions,  especially  in  the  case  of  the  Compiegne  psykter, 
seems  to  me  radically  different.  I have,  therefore,  not  included 
them  in  the  list  of  vases  I assign  to  Euthymides  or  his  school. 


CHAPTER  V 


PHINTIAS 

The  signature  of  Phintias  is  preserved  on  six  vases;  three  kylixes, 
an  amphora,  a hydria,  and  a lekythos.  The  fragmentary  kylix 
formerly  in  Hauser’s  collection  (P  V)  although  distinctly  in  the 
style  of  Phintias  lacks  the  name  and  although  the  restoration  of 
the  inscription  to  [^Lprias  e]ypa(f)aep  Xatp[tas  koXos]  is  extremely 
probable,  the  signature  cannot  be  regarded  as  absolutely  certain. 
The  Athens  kylix  (E  13)  which  bears  the  signature  ^LPrlas 
e7roL7]aeu  has  been  assigned  to  Euthymides  as  painter.  The 
fragments  of  a stamnos  in  Leipzig,  formerly  in  Hauser’s  collec- 
tion (P  7)  have  the  letters  NT  I A and  though  the  restoration  of 
these  letters  to  ^l[ptlo\s  has  been  suggested  it  is  impossible  to 
determine,  whether  in  case  the  suggested  name  is  correct,  they 
represent  a signature  as  artist,  as  potter,  or  merely  a KaXos  name. 
The  lekythos  bears  the  signature  with  eTrolr]aev.  Consequently 
only  four  vases  remain  with  his  signature  as  painter : the  kylixes 
in  Munich  and  Baltimore,  the  amphora  in  Corneto,  and  the 
hydria  in  the  British  Museum,  and  these  alone  afford  a sure 
ground  for  the  determination  of  the  elements  of  his  style  and  his 
relation  to  the  other  artists  of  the  period. 

P I.  [PL  XXV]:  Kylix,  Munich  2590  (401).  From  Vulci: 
h.  m.  0.115;  d.  m.  0.32.  The  vase  is  in  very  poor  condition, 
especially  the  interior. 

Jahn,  Cat.  p.  133,  No.  401. 

Jahn,  Bey.  d.  Sachs.  Ges.  d.  TFm.  1853,  p.  136  ff.  pi.  5,  6. 

Overbeck,  KM..,  Apollon,  p.  400,  3,  Atlas,  pi.  24,  3. 

Hart  wig,  pp.  169-172,  figs.  21,  22  a and  h. 

Roscher,  i,  p.  2208. 

F.R.  i,  pp.  168-172,  pi.  32. 

Klein,  p.  192,  No.  i. 

Meier,  P.  J.,  A.  Z.  1884,  p.  251,  i. 

Per.  et  Chip,  x,  p.  460,  fig.  263  (A). 

Q3 


94 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Central  picture,  A silen,  nude  and  bearded,  with  a flower 
wreath  in  his  hair  and  a drinking-horn  in  his  r.  hastens  to  r. 
while  looking  backward,  in  the  usual  ^'Knielauf”  schema.  Single 
stripe  (reserved)  as  border. 

Exterior,  A,  In  the  center  the  giant  Alkyoneus,  nude  and 
bearded,  reclines  to  1.  on  a cushion  placed  against  a rock,  his  1. 
arm  stretched  along  his  1.  thigh  while  his  r.  arm  is  bent  over  his 
forehead.  His  r.  knee  is  raised  higher  than  the  1.  Above  him  his 
name  AVKVONEV^  (retr.)  and  just  below  along  his  1.  leg  the 
signature  <1>IVTIA:^  EAPA4$^EN  (retr.).  Approaching  him  at 
the  1.  the  figure  of  Herakles  to  r.  clad  in  a short  chiton  and  lion’s 
skin,  his  club  in  his  r.  and  his  1.  arm  outstretched.  He  is  bearded. 
Along  his  r.  forearm  and  club  HEPAKVE^,  the  first  four  letters 
retrograde.  Behind  Alkyoneus,  Hermes  advancing  to  1.,  clad  in 
a short  chiton  and  nebris  and  wearing  high  boots  and  a cap.  He 
is  bearded  and  holds  the  kerykeion  in  his  1.  while  stretching  out 
his  r.  in  a gesture  corresponding  to  that  of  the  1.  arm  of  Herakles. 
Under  the  kerykeion  HEPME^  (retr.):  behind  his  elbow  the 
signature  of  the  potter  Deiniades,  AEIN[IA]AE^  [E]rOIE^EN. 

B,  Contest  for  the  Tripod.  In  the  center  Herakles  and  Apollo 
each  nude,  grasping  the  tripod  (of  the  earlier  form  with  two 
handles)  by  the  legs.  Herakles  is  bearded  and  has  his  hair 
arranged  in  “ Buckellockchen.”  On  the  ground  beneath  him  his 
club  and  behind  him  suspended,  his  bow  and  quiver.  He  is  with- 
out the  lion’s  skin.  Behind  him  HERAKVEE^^  (retr.).  Apollo 
wears  a laurel  wreath  and  ringlets;  behind  him  APOVVON. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions  and  wreaths.  Traces  on  the 
silen’s  feet  indicate  that  originally  they  were  ornamented  with 
purple  bands.  Outline  of  hair  reserved.  Anatomical  details 
in  incised  lines.  Palmette  scrolls  under'  the  handles  separating 
the  two  groups,  that  on  the  r.  consisting  of  a large  and  two 
small  scrolls,  the  other  of  one  large  and  one  small  scroll.  The 
form  of  the  vessel  is  that  peculiar  to  the  b.f.  period,  heavy  and 
squat. 

The  fact  that  incised  and  not  faint  or  relief  lines  are  used  for  the 
anatomical  details  is  significant  since  it  is  a feature  only  found  on 
vases  which  mark  the  earliest  essays  in  the  r.f.  technique  and 


Plate  XXV 


Mux\icn  25Q0  (PI) 


!p  - 


PHINTIAS 


95 


even  then  in  rare  instances.^  It  is  the  only  case  of  its  kind  in  the 
work  of  Phintias^  and  shows  that  the  kyhx,  as  might  also  be 
concluded  from  its  shape  and  style,  belongs  to  the  Epiktetan 
cycle.  It  is  certainly  the  earliest  work  of  Phintias.  In  similar 
fashion  to  most  of  the  early  kylixes  the  picture  on  the  interior 
has  nothing  to  do  with  those  on  the  exterior  and  is  simply  a form 
of  decoration  like  the  Gorgoneion  on  the  interior  of  b.f.  kylixes. 
The  silen  here  might  almost  be  a figure  translated  directly  from 
the  b.f.  style. 

More  interesting,  however,  are  the  pictures  on  the  exterior. 
The  myth  of  Alkyoneus  ^ has  been  very  comprehensively  treated 
by  Kopp  {A.  Z.  1884,  p.  3 iff.).  Curiously  enough  the  treatment 
of  the  myth  in  vase-paintings  differs  entirely  from  that  handed 
down  to  us  by  the  literary  tradition.  Pindar  in  two  passages 
{Isthm.  vi,  32  ff. : Nem.  iv,  25  ff.)  relates  that  Herakles  on  his 
return  from  Troy  accompanied  by  his  companion  Telamon 
attacked  the  gigantic  shepherd  Alkyoneus  and  slew  him  with  his 
arrows  after  the  giant  had  vainly  hurled  rocks  at  the  hero. 
Throughout  the  vase-paintings,  however,  we  see  the  giant  repre- 
sented as  fast  asleep,  in  some  cases  with  the  figure  of  Hypnos 
standing  beside  him,  thus  proving  that  the  hero  prevailed  against 
the  giant  by  surprising  him  while  asleep.  In  view  of  this  differ- 
ence in  the  two  legends  one  can  only  conclude  that  the  vase- 
painters  drew  their  inspiration  from  some  variant  now  lost. 

^ The  only  cases  occurring  in  the  r.f.  style  are: 

Amphora,  Munich  2302  (373)  with  the  KaXos  name  of  Hippokrates;  for 
details  v.  F.R.  i,  p.  151. 

Amphora,  Philadelphia,  signed  by  Menon  as  potter:  Bates,  AJ.A.  1905, 
pp.  169  ff.;  V.  p.  37. 

Kylix,  Compiegne  1106. 

Alabastron,  Karlsruhe,  242,  signed  by  Psiax  and  Hilinos,  v.  AJ.A.  1895,  p. 
486. 

Kylix,  New  York,  14.146.2,  signed  by  Psiax,  Bull.  Metr.  Mus.  10,  p.  100, 
note  I. 

For  the  above  list  I am  indebted  to  Beazley. 

2 The  drawing  in  Hartwig  gives  an  entirely  false  idea  of  the  anatomical  details 
since  it  is  evident  that  the  draftsman  misunderstood  the  purpose  of  the  incised  lines 
and  reproduced  them  as  a meaningless  jumble  all  over  the  bodies. 

3 For  the  various  representations  in  vase-paintings  of  the  myth  see  Furtwangler 
in  his  article  “ Herakles  ” in  Roscher’s  Lexikon. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


96 

The  treatment  of  the  tripod  contest  is  that  usual  in  the  earlier 
representations  of  the  myth  where  the  tripod  is  seized  by  both 
contestants,  whereas  in  the  later  vases  (which  version  Phintias 
follows  in  P II)  Herakles  walks  away  with  the  tripod  pursued  by 
Apollo.  A peculiarity  which  may  be  noted  is  that  the  lion-skin, 
the  almost  inseparable  attribute  of  Herakles,  is  missing,  and  the 
hero  is  represented  as  nude. 

The  execution  of  the  vase  is  fine,  careful,  and  one  might  almost 
add,  finicky.  This  is  eminently  characteristic  of  the  Epikte- 
tan  cycle  and  though  in  Phintias’  later  work  we  find  a greater 
breadth  of  treatment,  this  same  daintiness  of  execution  was 
never  entirely  lost. 

P.  J.  Meier  has  already  pointed  out  (loc.  cit.)  that  the  inscrip- 
tions on  the  vase  are  not  all  written  by  the  same  hand.  The 
signature  of  Phintias  is  in  extremely  fine,  almost  minute  letters 
while  those  identifying  the  figures  as  well  as  those  in  the  sig- 
nature of  Deiniades  are  painted  much  more  coarsely.  In  one 
name  (Herakles)  we  have  the  Ionic  rho  or  at  least  a suggestion  of 
it  and  the  epsilon  in  the  last  syllable  repeated. 

PH.  [PL  XXVI]:  Amphora,  Museo  Tarquiniense,  Corneto: 
h.  m.  0.66.  From  the  excavations  at  Corneto.  Numerous  frag- 
ments of  the  vase  are  missing  but  no  essential  part  of  the  design 
is  wanting. 

Mon.  d.  Inst,  xi,  pis.  27  and  28  = Reinach  i,  pp.  223-224. 
Helbig,  Bull,  del!  Inst.  1879,  p.  85  ff. 

Ann.  d.  Inst.  1881,  p.  74. 

Overbeck,  K.M.,  Apollon,  p.  64,  Atlas,  pi.  24,  4. 

Roscher,  Lex.  ii,  p.  2262. 

Hartwig,  p.  167. 

F.R.  ii,  pp.  167-171,  pi.  91. 

Kretschmer,  p.  173. 

Klein,  p.  192,  2;  cf.  De  Ridder,  Cat.  Cab.  d.  Med.  p.  285, 
No.  390.  fig.  59. 

Per.  et  Chip,  x,  p.  463,  fig.  264  (A). 

A.  Thiasos.  In  the  center,  Dionysos,  bearded,  with  ring- 
lets, and  clad  in  a long  Ionic  chiton  and  a cloak  draped  over 
the  1.  shoulder  and  the  r.  hip,  stands  to  r.  holding  in  his  1.  hand 
a vine  bearing  five  bunches  of  grapes  and  leaves,  and  in  his  r.  a 


Plate  XXVI 


Amphora  in  Corneto  (P  II) 


PHINTIAS 


97 


kantharos.  Most  of  his  head  is  wanting.  The  grape-vine  pro- 
jects into  the  upper  border.  In  front  of  his  head  [A]I0[N]V5^0^. 
Facing  him  at  the  r.  of  the  picture,  a group  composed  of  a silen 
and  a maenad.  The  latter  is  clad  in  a long  Ionic  chiton  and  a 
cloak  draped  over  the  1.  shoulder  and  r.  hip.  She  wears  a vine 
wreath  in  her  hair  and  holds  with  both  hands  over  her  shoulder 
the  thyrsos  which  is  composed  of  a large  reed  with  a bunch  of  ivy 
at  the  top.  She  is  playing  with  a panther  which  rests  its  hind 
feet  on  the  thyrsos  and  its  forefeet  on  her  neck.  Over  her  head 
KI:^INE.^  The  silen  beside  her,  bearded  and  nude,  wears  a vine 
wreath  in  his  hair  and  holds  the  double  flutes  in  his  1.  while 
carrying  the  flute-case  in  his  r.“  In  front  of  his  face  5^IMAAE:^ 
(retrograde);  between  his  legs,  also  retrograde,  4>INTIA:^ 
EAPA4^5^EN.  The  thyrsos  of  the  maenad,  the  end  of  her  cloak, 
and  her  1.  heel  project  into  the  side  border.  Behind  Dionysos  at 
the  1.  a similar  group  of  a silen  and  a maenad.  Aluch  of  this  has 
been  broken  away.  The  maenad,  clothed  in  similar  fashion  to  her 
sister  on  the  r.  wears  a stephane  in  her  hair.  She  holds  in  her  r.  a 
bird  and  in  her  1.  presumably  the  thyrsos,  the  end  of  which  is  still 
preserved  beside  the  kantharos.  The  silen  whose  face  is  seen  full 
front  is  bearded  and  nude  and  wears  a vine  wreath  in  his  hair. 
Both  his  arms  are  clasped  around  the  neck  of  the  maenad  and  his 
cheek  is  pressed  against  hers.  His  1.  leg  is  seen  in  profile,  his  r.  full 
front.  The  elbow  of  the  maenad  and  the  end  of  her  cloak  project 
into  the  l.h.  border.  The  loss  of  a large  part  of  both  figures  makes 
it  impossible  to  decide  whether,  as  is  most  probable,  they  were 
identified  by  inscriptions. 

B.  Contest  for  the  Tripod.  At  the  1.  Herakles  nude  and 
beardless,  except  for  whiskers,  wearing  a victor’s  crown  in  his 
hair,  advances  to  1.  holding  his  club  in  his  r.  and  the  tripod  in  his 
1.  while  looking  back  at  Apollo.  The  ends  of  his  hair  are  in  the 
form  of  Buckellockchen.”  Beside  him  HEPAKE5^  and  above 
[A] novo N (retrograde).  At  the  r.  Apollo  nude,  except  for  a 

^ This  inscription  was  not  discovered  until  the  last  drawing  was  made  by  Pro- 
fessor Reichhold  and  does  not  exist  in  the  Plate  in  the  Moninnenti. 

2 A further  peculiarity  is  that  the  silen  though  not  ithyphallic  has  the  head  of 
the  penis  defined  by  a line  through  the  recession  of  the  prepuce. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


98 

cloak  draped  over  his  shoulders,  with  a laurel  wreath  in  his  hair, 
and  ringlets,  pursues  Herakles,  holding  the  tripod  in  his  r.  while 
in  the  1.  he  carries  his  bow.  Between  his  legs  4>INTI^;  under 
the  legs  of  the  tripod  EAPA4>^EN.  The  tripod  has  the  form 
common  to  the  later  period  and  is  ornamented  with  lions’  feet. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  wreaths,  fillet,  and  grape-vine 
leaves  while  the  bunches  of  grapes  are  marked  by  raised  dots  like 
the  hair  of  Herakles.  Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines.  Outline 
of  hair  incised. 

Borders.  Obverse,  lower,  A 4 (a) ; sides,  A 4 (c) ; upper,  A 5 (6). 
Reverse  has  the  same  except  that  the  upper  is  B i {d).  The 
form  of  the  amphora  is  identical  with  that  of  E I-III  and  has  the 
same  decoration.  Two  ancient  rivet  holes  immediately  behind 
the  r.  shoulder  of  Dionysos  would  seem  to  show  that  the  vase  was 
mended  in  antiquity. 

As  the  Corneto  amphora  is  by  far  the  best  example  of  Phintias’ 
work  it  ought  perhaps  to  be  considered  first,  but  as  P I is  so  ob- 
viously the  master’s  earliest  work  it  has  seemed  advisable  to  put 
that  at  the  beginning  in  order  to  show  the  stylistic  development. 
The  two  vases  are  far  removed  from  each  other  in  point  of  style 
but  the  same  little  touches  which  characterize  the  artist  may  be 
seen  in  both. 

As  far  as  the  subject-matter  is  concerned,  little  need  be  said. 
The  scene  on  the  obverse  is  similar  to  that  seen  on  so  many  vases 
of  the  period;  the  Rape  of  the  Tripod,  follows,  as  already  stated, 
the  later  version  of  the  myth.  Herakles,  to  be  sure,  is  without  the 
lion-skin,  but  so  is  he  on  the  Munich  kylix,  and  it  may  be  noted 
that  in  all  probability  the  scene  of  the  myth  was  so  familiar 
to  all  who  beheld  the  painting,  that  by  no  possibility  could 
the  identity  of  the  figures  be  mistaken.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
scene  with  Alkyoneus  that  attribute  is  not  omitted  since  it  was 
possible  that  unless  the  figure  of  the  hero  was  clearly  indicated  a 
mistake  might  easily  have  occurred.  Would  that  all  the  Athenian 
vase-painters  had  been  as  considerate  of  the  feelings  of  the 
modern  archaeologists! 

But  the  chief  point  of  interest  is  the  stylistic  development  of 
the  vase,  contrasted  with  the  Munich  kylix.  Here  we  see  the 


PHINTIAS 


99 


artist  thoroughly  master  of  his  own  style,  no  longer  bound  by 
the  conventions  of  an  earlier  period.  The  execution  is  infinitely 
broader,  firmer  and  less  stilted  but  the  same  daintiness  and  fine- 
ness of  technique  is  still  apparent.  Most  of  the  little  technical 
peculiarities  which  we  have  already  observed  in  the  kylix  are  to 
be  seen  here  too,  such  as  the  anatomical  development  of  the  body, 
the  indication  of  the  finger-nails  and  toe-nails  and  a similar  draw* 
ing  of  the  heads.  The  composition  of  the  figures  is,  however,  much 
better  balanced.  A notable  advance  consists  in  the  foreshorten- 
ing of  the  figures  which  are  seen  full  front,  such  as  the  legs  of 
both  Herakles  and  Apollo  on  the  reverse  and  the  face  of  one  of  the 
silens  on  the  obverse.  That  this  last  is  not  rendered  successfully 
makes  httle  difference,  since  at  no  time  during  this  period  and  in 
fact  not  until  many  years  after  is  a successful  example  of  the 
human  face  seen  full  front  found  on  any  vase-painting.  Espe- 
cially remarkable  is  the  head  of  the  maenad  Kisine  which  has  so 
much  individuality  that  it  might  almost  be  regarded  as  a portrait. 

The  names  of  Kisine  and  Simades  are  here  met  with  for  the 
first  and  as  far  as  I know,  the  only  time.  Mistakes  in  the  inscrip- 
tions are  plentiful  as  the  name  of  the  artist  is  Phintias  on  one 
side  and  Phintis  on  the  other,  while  the  lambda  has  been  omitted 
from  the  name  of  Herakles.  If  the  artists  did  paint  their  own 
inscriptions  it  is  certainly  strange  that  their  orthography  should 
have  been  so  poor! 

Pill.  [Fig.  17]:  Kylix,  Archaeological  Museum,  Baltimore. 
From  Chiusi:  h.  m.  0.06.  d.  m.  0.18.  Form  rather  squat 

and  compact.  Glaze,  deep  black;  clay,  red  orange.  Central 
picture  only.  About  a third  of  the  design  is  missing. 

Hartwig,  Rom.  Mitt.  1887,  p.  169. 

Klein,  LI.,  p.  89,  No.  2. 

Hartwig,  p.  172  ff.  pi.  xvii,  i, 

Wernicke,  p.  54,  No.  2. 

Pottier,  Douris,  p.  25,  fig.  5. 

Per.  et  Chip,  x,  p.  464,  fig.  265. 

In  the  center  a youth  draped  in  a long  cloak  over  his  1.  shoulder 
and  forearm  which  leaves  the  rest  of  the  body  nude.  He  wears  a 
flower  wreath  in  his  hair.  On  his  cheek  a faint  suggestion  of 


lOO 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


whiskers.  He  rests  his  1.  armpit  on  a knobbed  staff  and  stretches 
out  both  hands,  holding  in  the  1.  a purse.  In  front  of  him  a krater, 
an  amphora  resting  in  its  iyyvdrjKT]  and  a kylix  of  the  earlier 
“ Lesser  Master  ” type.  Behind  him  a seat  and  the  signature 
<1>IV[TI]A^  EAPA<1>^EN.^  Immediately  in  front  of  him  + A I P I A ^ 


Fig.  17 


KAVO^.  The  picture  is  framed  by  a double  stripe.  A row  of 
dots  on  the  cushion  of  the  seat  and  along  the  edge  of  the  purse. 

Purple  paint  is  used  for  the  wreath  and  inscriptions.  Sugges- 
tion of  fainter  hnes  for  the  anatomical  details  though  most  of  the 
figure  is  missing.  Outline  of  hair  incised. 

The  presence  of  a seat  makes  it  evident  that  an  interior  is 
represented  and  that  interior  a potter’s  shop,  if  we  may  judge 
from  the  vases  which  are  evidently  exposed  for  sale  to  the  youth- 

1 That  Phintias  is  the  artist  named  on  this  vase  would  seem  fairly  evident,  since 
no  other  artist’s  name  will  fit  this  combination  of  letters.  Hartwig  who  has  ex- 
amined the  vase  very  carefully  reports  that  the  part  of  the  letter  immediately  after 
the  iota  is  most  probably  the  hasta  of  a lambda  and  not  a nii  so  that  the  form  would 
be  Philtias  which  we  have  already  seen  on  the  Munich  kylix.  If  an  objection  be 
made  that  the  vacant  space  requires  more  letters  than  a tau  and  an  iota  it  may 
be  said  that  the  youth’s  cloak  undoubtedly  filled  the  greater  part  of  that  space  and 
has  left  room  for  only  the  two  missing  letters.  Chairias,  we  find  from  C.I.G.  165  is 
an  Athenian  name  (cf.  Kirchner,  Prosopographia  ii,  p.  413). 


PHINTIAS 


lOI 


ful  purchaser.  The  youth  is  clearly  making  an  offer  for  the  vases 
which  are  spread  out  before  him.  It  represents  a characteristic 
little  scene  such  as  must  have  occurred  in  Athens  almost  daily 
since  we  know  that  the  Athenians  were  frequently  seen  in  the 
potters’  quarter  (cf.  Pollux,  vii,  197:  Arist.  Lysistr.  537).  Al- 
though we  have  no  meander  pattern  around  the  interior  picture 
such  as  marks  one  of  the  points  of  difference  between  the  Epik- 
tetan  and  Euphronian  cycles,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
kylix  is  later  than  P I.  The  execution  is  far  too  advanced  for  the 
earlier  period  and  the  choice  of  a genre  subject  is  certainly  more 
characteristic  of  the  later  time.  Foreign  too,  to  the  Epiktetan 
cycle,  is  the  use  of  the  double  stripe. 

The  style  of  the  kylix  is  more  closely  allied  to  that  of  P IV  than 
to  that  of  the  two  vases  just  described.  The  head  of  the  youth  is 
very  similar  to  those  on  the  hydria,  especially  in  the  treatment  of 
the  eyes,  ears,  mouth,  and  chin,  though  the  nose  is  a little  more 
pointed.  Very  similar,  too,  are  the  hands.  The  ankles,  in  raised 
lines  have  only  one  stroke  instead  of  two.  As  most  of  the  figure  is 
missing,  few  conclusions  can  be  drawn  as  to  the  treatment  of  the 
anatomy  of  the  body.  Were  it  not  for  the  signature  it  would  be 
difficult  to  assign  the  vase  correctly  since  almost  all  of  the  stylistic 
details  might  be  duplicated  in  the  work  of  several  other  masters. 
The  way  in  which  the  drapery  ends  in  two  sharp  points  resembles 
rather  that  on  the  Corneto  amphora.  It  will  be  noted  here  that 
the  limbs  of  the  body  show  as  clearly  through  the  drapery  as  if  it 
were  entirely  wanting  and  it  may  well  be,  as  Hartwig  has  pointed 
out,  that  this  was  done  by  the  artist  simply  and  solely  to  show 
that  he  thoroughly  understood  the  modelling  of  the  figure,  just  as 
modern  artists  are  in  the  habit  of  sketching  a figure  nude  before 
the  drapery  is  painted. 

But  the  chief  interest  of  the  kylix  lies  in  the  inscription.  On 
neither  of  the  two  signed  vases  of  Phintias  just  discussed  and  on 
only  one  vase  signed  by  Euthymides  (E  V)  have  we  found  any 
distinct  case,  as  such,  of  a Ka\bs  name.  This  is  not  surprising 
since  in  scenes  of  a heroic  or  Bacchic  nature  where  the  figures  are 
either  identified  by  name  or  else  by  their  attributes,  Ka\bs  is 
clearly  superficial  and  unnecessary.  Genre  scenes,  however,  like 


102 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


that  on  this  vase  and  P IV  are  eminently  suited  to  its  employ- 
ment. The  name  of  Chairias  occurs  on  a group  of  kylixes  to  be 
discussed  presently;  this  is  its  only  instance  on  a vase  bearing  an 
artist’s  signature. 

The  whole  vexed  question  of  the  identity  of  the  individuals  who 
figure  with  the  koKos  formula  on  Attic  vases  is  closely  bound  up 
with  our  kylix.  The  old  view  that  these  names  represented 
favorites  of  the  potters  in  the  erastic  sense  has,  of  course,  long 
since  been  abandoned. 

It  may  be  regarded  as  fairly  well  established  that  the  greater 
part  of  the  names  followed  by  koKos  on  Attic  vases  do  refer  to 
definite  and  well-known  individuals  and  the  more  prominent  the 
individual  the  more  often  does  his  name  occur.  The  name  of 
Leagros  is  a case  in  point  since  he  who  was  afterwards  a prominent 
Athenian  general  seems  to  have  been  a well-known  youth  in  his 
younger  days.  The  spirit  on  the  part  of  the  potters  which  in- 
spired this  habit  is  practically  identical  with  that  in  America 
today,  since  few  men  who  have  attained  to  any  degree  of  promi- 
nence have  escaped  the  honor,  or  it  might  almost  be  considered, 
the  indignity,  of  having  a cigar  or  some  other  article  named  after 
them.  Chairias  of  course,  is  not  a name  famous  in  Athenian 
history,  but  the  little  scene  represented  here  is  of  such  an  intimate 
character  as  to  suggest  the  idea  that  the  name  may  have  had 
something  to  do  with  the  actual  purchaser  of  the  vase.  Any  one 
who  has  examined  a large  number  of  Attic  vases  must  have  been 
struck  by  the  fact  that  these  names  form  no  part  of  the  original 
design  or  subject  of  the  vase  and  are  added  wherever  the  space 
permits,  in  a singularly  haphazard  fashion.  Therefore  it  is  by  no 
means  a fantastic  theory  if  we  assume  that  the  inscriptions, 
especially  those  with  /caXos  were  added  to  the  vase  after  it  was 
finished,  to  suit  the  individual  taste  of  the  purchaser.  We  know 
that  all  such  details  as  fillets,  belts,  wreaths,  flowers,  etc.  were 
added  to  the  vase  after  it  had  undergone  its  second  firing  and  that 
the  vases  were  then  fired  for  the  third  time,  at  a low  temperature 
but  high  enough  to  fix  the  colors  hard  and  fast.  If  now  a certain 
Chairias  was  the  purchaser  of  the  vase,  there  is  no  reason  why  he 
should  not  have  bought  the  same  in  its  completed  form  and  then 


PHINTIAS 


103 


have  had  his  name  added  afterwards,  or,  as  M.  Pettier  has  sug- 
gested to  me,  ordered  his  name  painted  on  the  vase  before  any 
inscriptions  were  added.  If  a third  firing  was  possible,  a fourth 
would  have  been  equally  so  and  the  vase  would  certainly  have 
sustained  no  damage.  Unfortunately  an  examination  of  the 
actual  material  will  throw  no  light  on  this  point  since  it  is  im- 
possible to  prove  whether  a vase  has  undergone  three  or  four 
firings,  but  the  theory  is  a perfectly  adequate  explanation  of  the 
way  in  which  the  koXos  names  are  found  on  vases  and  is  at  least 
a possible  working  hypothesis.^ 

An  additional  interest  is  given  by  the  fact  that  the  name 
Chairias  occurs  on  six  other  vases  (for  list  see  Klein,  LI.  pp. 
87  and  88).  Of  these  four  are  small  kyfixes,  in  Berlin,  Adria, 
the  Louvre  (Mus.  Charles  X),  and  a fourth  formerly  in  the  Van 
Branteghem  collection  in  Brussels;  these  four  form  a class  by 
themselves,  for  not  only  is  the  technique  poor  and  hasty  in  all  of 
them,  but  each  exhibits  a peculiar  and  characteristic  form  of  the 
kappa  and  omicron,  both  letters  being  open.  On  the  strength  of 
the  name  Chairias,  Hartwig  attributes  all  four  indiscriminately 
to  the  hand  of  Phintias. 

Now  if  we  find  a certain  koXos  name  occurring  only  on  the 
vases  signed  by  a certain  master  and  on  no  others  bearing 
another  master’s  signature,  then  the  existence  of  such  a name  on 
any  unsigned  vase  which  shows  distinct  stylistic  resemblances  to 
the  work  of  that  master,  is  a strong  bit  of  additional  evidence. 
But  to  argue  that  because  a certain  master  uses  a certain  /caXos 
name  all  other  vases  which  are  unsigned  but  which  have  this  name 
must  come  from  his  workshop,  is  a very  different  thing.  The 
name  of  Leagros  occurs  in  the  signed  work  of  both  Euphronios 
and  Chachrylion,  but  no  one  dreams  of  assigning  all  of  the  forty 
odd  vases  which  bear  this  name  without  a signature  to  these 
two  artists.  Such  stylistic  resemblances  to  Phintias’  work  as  are 
found  on  these  kylixes  are  of  the  most  superficial  description  and 

^ It  must  be  noted  that  the  greatest  obstacle  in  the  way  of  this  suggestion,  is 
that  its  adoption  would  effectually  bar  the  use  of  KaXos  names  in  matters  of  chrono- 
logy since  if  all  names  were  added  to  suit  the  purchasers’  convenience  they  might 
have  been  frequently  repeated  over  a long  period  of  years.  At  the  same  time  such 
cases  may  have  occurred  sporadically. 


104 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


the  execution  is  so  immeasurably  below  his  work  that  I find  it 
impossible  to  believe  that  they  could  have  come  from  his  work- 
shop.^ Moreover,  on  no  signed  vase  or  on  any  unsigned  vase 
which  can  with  good  reason  be  attributed  to  him,  do  we  find  any 
inscriptions  which  are  in  the  least  degree  like  those  on  these 
kylixes  either  in  the  openness  of  the  kappa  and  omicron  or  in  the 
general  character  of  the  letters.  We  have  already  seen  (p.  57) 
that  an  amphora  in  the  Louvre  might  reasonably  be  regarded  as 
an  imitation  of  Euthymides’  work;  so  here  I am  disposed  to 
regard  the  four  kylixes  as  the  product  of  a workshop  which 
directly  copied  the  bettei- grade  products  of  Phintias’  hand  but 
in  a very  inferior  manner.  It  is  surely  easier  to  believe  this  than 
to  assert  that  the  atelier  of  Phintias  was  capable  of  turning  out 
any  vases  of  such  very  inferior  workmanship. 

P IV.  [PI.  XXVII  and  Fig.  18]:  Hydria,  British  Museum,  No. 

E 159.  Old  No.  720.  From  Vulci:  h.  m.  0.534. 

Cat.  iii,  p.  146. 

Canino  Col.  No.  551.  Mus.  Hr.  551. 

Gerhard,  Rapp.  Vole.  No.  696,  719. 

J.  H.  S.  xii,  pp.  366  ff.  pis.  20-21.  (Jones). 

Birch,  Class.  Mus.  v,  pp.  99-102. 

Stuart,  Archaeologia,  xxiii,  p.  177. 

Welcker,  Rhein.  Mus.  vi,  p.  90. 

Brunn,  K.  G.  ii,  p.  728. 

Klein,  p.  193,  No.  3.  LI.,  p.  120,  No.  2. 

Wernicke,  p.  76,  No.  i. 

Hartwig,  p.  167.  C.I.G.  8314. 

Hackl,  p.  40,  xlvi  a,  44,  p.  49,  Ixviii,  559. 

Per.  et  Chip,  x,  p.  466,  fig.  266. 

[The  descriptions  are  in  the  main  from  the  British  Museum 
Catalogue] 

Main  Picture.  Hydrophoria.  From  a fountain  in  the  form  of 
a lion’s  head  which  projects  from  the  r.  border  of  the  design  flows 
a stream  of  water  into  the  mouth  of  a hydria  held  under  it  by 
both  handles  by  a nude  ephebos  to  r.  In  his  hair  a vine  wreath. 

1 If,  in  spite  of  the  poor  execution,  the  four  kylixes  are  to  be  considered  as  coming 
from  Phintias’  workshop,  then  it  is  perfectly  certain  that  the  inscriptions  were  not 
painted  by  the  same  hand  which  painted  those  on  the  signed  and  practically  all  the 
unsigned  vases. 


Plate  XXVII 


British  Museum  E 159  (P  IV) 


PHINTIAS 


lOS 

Over  his  head  KAVO^.  The  hydria  is  of  the  earlier  shape  with  a 
shoulder  sharply  separated  from  the  body.  Behind  him  a second 
ephebos  to  r.  wearing  a laurel  wreath  and  balancing  on  his  1. 
shoulder  a kalpis  which  he  holds  by  the  handle  with  his  r.,  resting 
his  1.  on  his  hip.  He  turns  back  to  speak  to  a bearded  man  who 
leans  forward  on  a knobbed  staff  which  he  holds  with  his  1.  while 
resting  his  r.  on  his  hip.  He  wears  a vine  wreath  in  his  hair  and  a 
mantle  draped  over  his  1.  shoulder  and  body  so  as  to  leave  the  torso 
and  r.  shoulder  bare.  His  1.  leg  is  crossed  in  front  of  his  r.  On 
the  border  of  his  mantle  a row  of  dots.  Behind  him  again  to  r.  a 
third  youth  also  nude  with  the  same  vine  wreath  in  his  hair  hold- 
ing up  by  both  handles  a hydria  of  the  same  shape  as  that  held 
by  the  first  youth.  Above  him  MEAAKVE:^.  Rows  of  dots  are 
used  for  the  rims,  necks,  feet,  and  bases  of  the  hydriae.  The 
handles  are  in  black. 

Shoulder.  Symposium.  Two  figures  wearing  vine  wreaths,  and 
mantles  about  their  legs,  reclining  to  1.  and  looking  to  r.  Each 


leans  his  1.  elbow  against  a striped  cushion.  The  1.  h.  figure  is 
bearded  and  holds,  clasped  around  the  stem,  an  inverted  kylix 
of  the  ‘‘  Lesser  Master  ” type  of  which  the  foot  and  handles  are 
in  black.  In  his  r.  which  rests  on  his  knee  he  holds  a similar 
kylix  by  the  handle.  The  r.  h.  figure  strikes  with  the  fingers  of 
his  1.  the  chords  of  a chelys  placed  against  his  body  while  his  r. 
rests  idly  on  his  knee.  In  the  field,  <t>ITIA$^  EAPA4>^EN. 


io6 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Fig.  19 


Under  the  foot  graffito  (Fig.  19).  Purple  is  used  for  the  inscrip- 
tions, wreaths,  and  the  water  from  the  fountain  (now  faded). 
Anatomical  details,  nostrils,  hair  on  cheek,  articulation  of  the  ster- 
num, horizontal  folds  of  the  drapery  on  the 
figures  of  the  shoulder,  in  faint  lines.  Out- 
line of  hair  incised  but  not  the  beard. 

Borders.  Main  picture.  Below,  A 4 (a) : 
sides,  B 3 (c) : upper  (forming  also  the  lower 
border  of  shoulder)  A 8 (a) . Shoulder,  sides, 
A 4 {e):  upper,  A 6. 

The  form  is  that  characteristic  of  the  b.f. 
period  with  the  square  shoulder.  The  base 
is  encircled  by  two  purple  stripes  and  a ray  pattern.  The  handles 
are  reserved  with  A 6 around  their  base.  The  lip  is  edged  with 
red  and  has  a band  of  A 6 inside.  The  base  of  the  handle  at  the 
back  is  marked  by  three  raised  knobs  to  imitate  rivets,  colored 
purple,  with  an  inverted  r.  f.  palmette  below.  The  foot  is  edged 
with  a purple  stripe. 

P IV,  while  not  to  be  compared  in  point  of  general  excellence 
with  P II,  is  still  an  extremely  important  piece  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  style  of  Phintias,  as  it  forms  the  connecting  link  with 
a series  of  other  vases  which  we  shall  attribute  to  Phintias  very 
largely  on  the  strength  of  it.  If  we  were  forced  to  depend  entirely 
on  two  such  diverse  vases  as  P I and  II  for  our  knowledge  of 
Phintias’  style  (for  very  few  stylistic  conclusions  can  be  drawn 
from  P III)  we  should  find  ourselves  in  difficulties  in  attributing 
other  vases.  In  P IV  we  have  an  extraordinarily  good  criterion, 
for  not  only  does  it  show  the  use  of  a genre  scene  such  as  we  shall 
see  is  a favorite  with  Phintias  but  the  use  of  the  name  Megakles 
brings  it  at  once  in  contact  with  Euthymides  while  the  choice  of 
the  subject  on  the  shoulder  is  matched  by  E V and  the  Hetairae 
psykter  of  Euphronios. 

The  graffito  on  the  base  is  rather  important  as  it  forms  an 
additional  link  between  P IV  and  a number  of  vases  which  bear 
no  signature.  Hackl  in  his  careful  essay  {Merkantiler  Inschriften 
auj  Attischen  Vasen,  Munich  1909)  gives  a fairly  complete  list 
of  the  various  painted  inscriptions  or  graffiti  found  on  the  bases  of 


PHINTIAS 


107 


Attic  b.  and  r.  f.  vases,  and  shows  that  the  graffiti  were  marks 
added  by  the  dealer  for  commercial  purposes  (very  much  like 
tags  on  the  goods  in  a modern  shop)  and  were  not  placed  there  by 
the  maker  of  the  vase. 

Now  the  graffito  on  the  base  of  P IV  is  practically  duplicated 
on  the  bases  of  three  other  vases,  Munich  2421(6)  = P i,  Munich 
2422(50)  = P 2,  and  Louvre  G 41  = P 3.  These  three,  as  I 
shall  endeavor  to  show  later,  are  all  distinctly  in  the  style  of 
Phintias.  Further,  P IV  and  i were  found  at  Vulci,  P 2 prob- 
ably so  and  P 3 according  to  the  catalogue  was  ‘‘  trouve  en 
Etrurie  entre  1828  et  1837.”  Therefore,  since  all  four  were  pre- 
sumably found  in  the  same  place  it  becomes  practically  certain 
that  they  were  imported  into  Etruria  by  the  same  dealer  at  the 
same  time  as  part  of  the  same  lot,  and  when  we  find  that  one  of 
the  four  bears  the  signature  of  Phintias  and  of  the  others  two 
(P  I and  2)  are  certainly  in  his  style  and  the  third  (P  3)  although 
slightly  more  archaic  in  execution  most  probably  so,  we  are  cer- 
tainly justified  in  regarding  the  existence  of  the  graffiti  as  a very 
strong  argument  in  favor  of  their  common  origin. 

P V.  [Fig.  20]:  Kylix,  Leipzig.  Formerly  in  Hauser’s  possession. 

From  Orvieto:  h.  m.  0.07:  d.  m.  0.16.  Central  picture  only. 

The  shape  is  less  heavy  than  P III  and  the  foot  thinner.  Only 

a third  of  the  vase  remains. 

Hart  wig,  p.  175,  pi.  xvii,  2. 

Interior.  A youth  with  head  raised,  obviously  singing,  reclines 
to  r.  on  a couch.  He  wears  a cloak  wrapped  around  his  waist 
which  leaves  the  torso  bare,  and  holds  a chelys  in  his  1.  and 
the  plektron  in  his  r.  In  the  field  around  the  edge  [4>INTIA^ 
E]APA<|5^EN:  +AIP[IA^  KAVO^j.i 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscription  and  the  cord  of  the  chelys. 
Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines.  Although  the  face  is  wanting  a 
suggestion  of  whiskers  is  to  be  seen  on  the  cheek.  Outline  of  hair 
reserved. 

^ In  the  signature  of  Phintias  on  P VI  we  find  three  dots  between  the  name  and 
the  verb;  Euthymides  uses  them  also  on  E I to  separate  the  signature  from  the 
name  of  Priam. 


I08  EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 

That  Hartwig’s  attribution  of  this  kylix  to  Phintias  is  correct 
I see  no  reason  to  doubt,  and  the  restoration  of  the  inscription  to 
<1^INTIA^  EAPA4>:^EN  XAIPIA:^  K A VO  ^ seems  to  be  the  only  one 
possible  in  view  of  the  style.  In  addition  to  a general  similarity 
to  P III  and  the  name  of  Chairias,  the  drapery  is  arranged 
about  the  waist  ^ in  almost  the  same  fashion  as  on  the  figures 


on  the  shoulder  of  P IV,  and  the  youth  here  has  whiskers  which 
Phintias  usually  gives  his  youths.  The  position  of  the  hands 
and  the  chelys  is  exactly  like  that  in  the  figure  of  Demetrios 
on  P I . The  rather  flat  chest  seen  in  profile  seems  to  me  more 
like  an  unsuccessful  attempt  at  foreshortening  on  the  part  of 
the  artist,  than  as  Hartwig  would  have  it,  an  attempt  to  por- 
tray an  individual  peculiarity. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  artists  of  the  period  under 
discussion  were  by  no  means  sure  of  their  drawing,  and  very  fre- 
quently obtained  an  effect  which  they  quite  obviously  never 
intended.  Consequently  Hartwig’s  suggestion,  though  not  im- 
possible, is  not  a very  probable  one. 

^ This  is  certainly  not  the  case  with  the  Louvre  kylix  with  the  name  of  Chairias; 
Hartwig,  p.  177,  b. 


PHINTIAS 


109 


P VI.  [Fig.  21]:  Lekythos,  Eleusis.  From  Eleusis. 

Philios,  Ephe^n.  Arch.  1885,  pi.  9,  n.  io  = Reinach  i,  p.  509. 
Klein,  p.  193,  n.  4. 

Hart  wig,  p.  167,  n.  4. 

A.  Z.  1884,  p.  251. 

Per.  et  Chip,  x,  p.  465,  note  i. 


Fig.  21 


The  vase  is  in  the  form  of  a mussel-shell  but  only  the  top  is 
preserved  and  there  is  no  trace  of  any  pictured  decoration. 
Around  the  edge  of  the  rim  is  the  signature  4^INTIA^:ErOIE^EN:. 

As  the  fragment  possesses  no  importance  apart  from  the  sig- 
nature, further  comment  would  seem  to  be  unnecessary. 

Signature  and  Inscriptions.  With  the  exception  of  Pam- 
phaios  no  vase-painter  signs  his  name  more  carelessly  than 
Phintias.  On  three  different  vases  we  have  no  less  than  four 
different  ways  of  spelling  his  name:  Philtias  (P  I and  III), 
Phintias  (P  II:  also  on  P VI),  Phitias  (P  IV)  and  Phintis  (P  II), 
and  as  the  signature  varies  on  the  same  vase  (P  II)  it  is  ob\dous 
that  carelessness  is  responsible  which  gives  color  to  the  suggestion 
that  the  inscriptions  were  added  by  subordinates.  Since  the 
form  Phintias  is  used  on  E 13  signed  by  him  as  the  maker  we  are 
justified  in  assuming  that  to  be  the  more  usual  one.  Only  once 
does  he  use  the  Attic  form,  Philtias.^  On  this  account  Kret- 
schmer (p.  74)  assigns  to  him  a Sicilian  or  Lower  Itahan  origin 
(which  may  very  possibly  be  correct)  while  Studniczka  {Jhh. 

^ Strictly  speaking  this  is  true  as  the  signature  on  P III  has  to  be  restored  to  read 
4>IV[TI]A^.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  however,  that  the  restoration  is  correct 
and  that  we  have  a second  instance  of  the  name  Philtias  so  that  Kretschmer’s  sug- 
gestion is  not  necessarily  to  be  accepted. 


no 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


1887,  p.  158,  note  102)  is  inclined  to  consider  him  a Dorian.  He 
may  have  been  a Me  tic  but  since  we  have  no  evidence  to  show 
definitely  whether  Euthymides  was  or  was  not  an  Athenian 
citizen,  the  partnership,  which  we  have  assumed  to  exist  between 
them  cannot  be  objected  to  on  the  grounds  that  business  connec- 
tions between  Athenian  citizens  and  Metics  were  impossible. 
P I,  his  earliest  work,  which  belongs  to  the  Epiktetan  cycle,  has 
the  signature  of  Deiniades  as  the  maker;  later,  as  shown  by  E 13, 
he  established  himself  as  proprietor  of  his  own  workshop. 

Use  of  koXos  Names.  Only  two  can  be  considered  absolutely 
certain,  Megakles  (P  IV)  and  Chairias  (PHI).  The  former,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  used  by  Euthymides;  the  latter  occurs  in  the 
b.  f.  style  as  well  as  on  several  r.  f.  vases,  but  it  is  uncertain 
whether  any  of  them  can  be  attributed  to  any  other  painter. 
Such  names  as  occur  on  unsigned  vases  will  be  discussed  later. 

Relation  to  other  Artists.  I have  already  analyzed  at 
some  length  in  chapter  iii  the  relation  of  Phintias  to  Euthymides 
and  their  connection  with  the  b.  f.  style,  so  that  any  further 
treatment  of  this  paiticular  point  becomes  unnecessary. 

Style.  As  was  stated  above  in  the  discussion  of  the  style  of 
Euthymides,  only  those  vases  which  bear  the  painter’s  signature 
can  be  considered  in  this  connection  and  in  the  case  of  Phintias 
we  have  only  four  vases  signed  by  him  in  this  way.  Owing  to  the 
fact  that  P I represents  his  earliest  manner  and  P III  is  extremely 
fragmentary,  we  have  practically  only  two  vases  on  which  to  base 
our  table  of  stylistic  details. 

Eurtwangler  (loc.  cit.  p.  169)  has  evolved  the  theory  that 
Phintias  and  Euphronios  were  intimately  associated  together  in 
common  rivalry  with  their  contemporary  Euthymides.  He  bases 
this  idea  on  certain  styhstic  details  which  are  common  to  both 
the  first  named  artists  such  as  the  treatment  of  the  eyes,  drapery, 
etc.  Against  this  may  be  said  that  barring  a few  details,  which 
are,  after  all,  more  or  less  common  property  during  the  period, 
there  is  absolutely  no  evidence  of  any  kind  to  show  such  a con- 
nection. On  the  other  hand,  as  has  already  been  emphasized  in 
these  pages,  the  relation  between  Phintias  and  Euthymides  is 
supported  by  a great  many  facts,  the  least  of  them  being  the 


PHINTIAS 


III 


stylistic  resemblance.  Moreover,  for  every  point  of  resemblance 
in  the  work  of  Phintias  and  Euphronios,  two  or  more  may  be 
found  in  the  styles  of  Phintias  and  Euthymides.  The  same  vase 
has  very  frequently  been  attributed  to  Phintias  by  some  scholars 
and  to  Euthymides  by  others,  but  I know  of  no  case  where  any 
vase  has  indiscriminately  been  attributed  to  both  Phintias  and 
Euphronios;  any  confusion  between  the  work  of  the  two  seems 
to  me  impossible.  At  the  same  time  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  both  follow  the  traditions  of  the  time  in  treating  some  details 
in  the  same  way  and  certain  details  are  identically  the  same  in 
the  work  of  both.  The  proportion  of  the  figures,  for  example, 
is  the  same,  1:7. 

1.  Hair.  The  hair  is  treated  as  a solid  mass  but  with  the 
addition  of  ‘‘Buckellockchen”,  which  either  cover  the  entire  head 
(Herakles,  on  P I)  or  are  treated  as  a fringe  (Herakles,  on  P II). 
The  outlines  may  be  either  incised  or  reserved  and  ringlets  are 
frequently  added.  The  krobylos  does  not  occur  on  any  signed 
vase. 

2.  Eyebrows.  The  eyebrows  are  represented  in  the  same  way 
as  in  the  work  of  Euth}rmides,  except  that  the  silens  on  P II  have 
much  heavier  brows. 

3.  Eyes.  The  eyes  may  be  either  a dot  or  a dot  in  circle  (both 
forms  on  PI).  Eyelashes  in  relief  lines  are  found  on  both  P I 
and  II. 

4.  Nose.  The  noses  are  slightly  squarer  at  the  ends  than  is 
the  case  in  the  work  of  Euthymides ; the  nostrils  may  be  in  relief 
or  faint  lines  and  are  frequently  too  small  (maenads  on  P II). 

5.  Mouth.  The  mouths  differ  in  no  degree  from  those  drawn 
by  Euthymides.  On  P II  they  are  represented  slightly  open. 

6.  Chin.  Practically  no  difference  is  to  be  observed  between 
the  Phintian  and  Euthymidean  chins. 

7.  Ears.  Like  the  Euthymidean  ear,  those  drawn  by  Phin- 
tias are  set  too  high  and  at  an  angle.  They  differ  in  being  drawn 
with  fewer  lines,  in  the  absence  of  the  two  lines  of  the  inner  ear 
meeting  in  a point  (as  in  the  work  of  Euthymides)  and  in  having 
a more  decided  lobe  which  is  larger  and  ends  in  a point  at  its  base. 
(Herakles  on  P II,  youth  on  P HI). 


II2 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


8.  Beards.  There  is  very  little  difference  between  the  treat- 
ment of  the  beards  by  the  two  artists  except  that  those  used  by 
Phintias  do  not  curl  up  so  much  at  the  end.  Also  the  moustache 
covers  the  entire  lip. 

9.  Neck.  As  has  been  already  observed,  the  neck  muscles  are 
represented  by  relief  lines  starting  from  the  collar  bone  and 
radiating  upwards  and  outwards  in  opposite  fashion  to  the 
manner  of  Euthymides. 

10.  Torso.  In  his  treatment  of  the  torso  Phintias  differs  very 
materially  from  Euthymides.  The  collar  bones  are  always  in 
relief  lines,  have  a much  smaller  hook,  and  are  farther  apart. 

The  chest  does  not  resemble  that  drawn  by  Euthymides.  The 
breasts  are  sharply  separated  by  a small  triangle  or  else  by  a 
series  of  parallel  relief  lines  in  which  case  the  breasts  are  placed 
far  apart.  This  use  of  the  parallel  relief  lines  to  indicate  the 
sternum  is  distinctly  characteristic  of  Phintias.  The  nipples  may 
be  either  a plain  circle  or  a dotted  circle. 

As  in  the  work  of  Euthymides  the  abdominal  muscles  are 
indicated  by  a series  of  four  circles  but  more  elongated,  the  iliac 
furrow  and  linea  alba  in  relief  lines.  The  navel  is  indicated  by  a 
small  circle.  We  find  hair  on  the  pubes  of  the  nude  figures  but 
the  scrotum  lacks  the  triple  division.  The  penis  is  similar  to  that 
found  on  the  figures  of  Euthymides  except  that  the  end  is  smaller 
and  more  sharply  defined.  On  the  whole  the  anatomy  of  the  torso 
is  drawn  with  less  skill  than  in  the  work  of  Euthymides. 

11.  Arms.  The  modelling  of  the  various  arm  muscles  varies 
little  from  that  of  Euthymides  except  that  it  is  perhaps  a shade 
less  skilful.  Phintias  is  careful  to  indicate  the  finger-nails  on  the 
hands  of  most  of  his  figures  as  well  as  the  knuckles,  both  of  which 
details  were  commonly  omitted  by  Euthymides. 

12.  Legs.  The  modelling  of  the  leg  muscles  in  the  figures  of 
Phintias  is  not  as  accurate  as  in  those  of  Euthymides  and  more 
labored.  The  furrow  in  the  thigh  is  indicated  by  two  curved 
lines  placed  farther  apart  than  was  the  case  in  Euthymides’  work 
with  no  continuing  line  down  the  upper  leg.  The  frontal  knee 
is  marked  by  relief  lines  and  resembles  that  used  by  Euthymides. 
The  ankles  are  usually  indicated  by  a hook  and  a short  line  in 
relief. 


PHINTIAS 


II3 

13.  Feet.  Thoroughly  characteristic  are  the  feet  of  Phintias’ 
figures.  They  are  too  long,  are  almost  always  provided  with 
nails  (when  the  foot  is  seen  full  front  the  sinews  or  veins  are 
indicated,  e.  g.  Herakles  and  Apollo  on  P II)  and  not  only  is  the 
big  toe  carefully  separated  from  the  ball  of  the  foot  but  several 
small  relief  lines  are  placed  along  the  sole,  to  mark  the  instep  and 
the  heel. 

14.  Drapery.  The  details  of  the  drapery  are  usually  indi- 
cated by  relief  lines  with  faint  lines,  set  more  closely  together 
than  is  usual  with  Euthymides,  for  the  thin  garments.  The 
borders  are  continuous  and  are  occasionally  provided  with  a row 
of  dots  (P  IV).  The  chitons  have  three  lines  at  the  necks.  On 
the  cloak  of  Apollo  (P  II)  is  a small  pattern  of  dots  like  arrow- 
heads. Characteristic  are  the  relief  lines  radiating  from  the 
sleeve-buckles  (Dionysos  on  P II) . 

15  and  16.  The  wreaths,  fillets,  and  decorative  borders  used 
by  Phintias  differ  in  no  way  from  those  which  are  common  to  all 
the  other  artists  of  the  period. 

From  the  above  table  it  will  be  seen  that  the  differences 
between  the  styles  of  Phintias  and  Euthymides  are  not  very 
great  and,  in  the  case  of  the  former,  practically  narrow  them- 
selves down  to  the  use  of  ‘^Buckellockchen  ”,  parallel  lines  on 
the  sternum,  finger-  and  toe-nails,  less  intelligent  drawing  of  the 
abdominal  muscles  and  definition  of  the  ball  of  the  foot  with  a 
peculiar  ankle.  The  use  of  incised  lines  for  details  only  occurs 
once. 

As  far  as  technical  skill  is  concerned  it  must  be  admitted  that 
Phintias  is  distinctly  inferior  to  Euthymides.  His  foreshortening 
is  neither  as  ambitious  nor  as  successful  and  he  was  more  con- 
cerned about  details  than  his  partner.  But  he  possessed  the  ele- 
ments of  a bigger  style,  for  nothing  in  the  work  of  Euthymides  is 
on  a par  with  the  head  of  the  maenad  on  P II,  or  the  stooping 
akontist  on  P 6,  and  one  wishes  that  more  of  his  work  had  been 
preserved  to  us.  From  the  fact  that  fewer  vases  can  be  attributed 
to  Phintias  than  to  Euthymides  we  may  possibly  conclude  that 
having  once  become  the  owner  of  an  atelier  (as  we  know  to  have 
been  the  case)  he  ceased  to  paint  vases. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


II4 

Attributed  Vases 

The  number  of  vases  without  a signature  which  in  view  of  their 
style  can  be  assigned  to  Phintias  is  far  smaller  than  those  attrib- 
uted to  Euthymides.  In  my  opinion  only  eight  can  be  included 
in  the  list  with  any  degree  of  safety,  three  hydriae  (Munich  2421, 
2422  and  Louvre  G41),  the  Beugnot  amphora,  the  Bourguignon 
psykter  in  Boston,  the  obverse  of  British  Museum  E 255  = E 2, 
the  fragmentary  stamnos  in  Leipzig,  and  the  krater  in  Petrograd. 
To  this  list  I also  add  a small  fragment  of  some  large  vessel  in 
the  Villa  Giulia  in  Rome. 

I have  already  mentioned  (p.  38)  that  Hartwig  attributes 
absolutely  to  Phintias  the  fragmentary  b.f.  hydria  in  Berlin, 
(1909)  but  I do  not  regard  the  evidence  as  sufficiently  strong  at 
present  to  attribute  any  b.f.  vase  to  a r.f.  painter.  Eurtwangler 
has  assigned  to  him  the  Brussels  hydria  (E  10)  which  I have 
attributed  to  Euthymides.  Beazley  and  Hartwig  give  the  frag- 
mentary volute  krater  in  Berlin  (2181)  to  Phintias,  but  with  this 
I do  not  agree.  Eurther,  Hartwig  (p.  191,  iv)  attributes  to  Phin- 
tias’ hand  the  Vatican  Amphora  No.  495  (Gerhard,  Aus.  Vas. 
pi.  i26  = Reinach  ii,  p.  68,  6-8)  which  Beazley,  as  I think  with 
better  reason,  has  included  among  the  works  of  his  Master  of 
the  Troilos  Hydria  {J.H.S.  1912,  p.  171,  No.  3). 

Pi.  [PL  XXVIII]:  Hydria,  Munich  2421  (6).  From  Vulci. 

The  form  is  identical  with  that  of  P IV. 

Jahn,  Cat.  No.  6.  “Kottabos  auf  Vasenbilder  ”,  in  Philologus  xxvi 
(1867),  p.  223,  pi.  ii.  Bad  plate  and  reversed. 

Klein,  Euphronios,  p.  no.  Shoulder  picture  reversed. 

Brunn,  K.G.  ii,  p.  687.  Bull.  d.  Inst.  1859,  p.  219. 

Hartwig,  p.  194,  viii. 

Wernicke,  p.  52,  n.  3. 

Klein,  p.  195,  5. 

Meier,  P.J.,  A.  Z.  1884,  p.  252. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  16  ff.  a. 

Walters,  i,  p.  429,  2. 

F.R.  ii,  pp.  63-74,  pi.  71- 

Hackl,  pp.  40,  No.  421;  48,  No.  556. 

Main  picture.  At  the  r.  a bearded  man  to  1.  seated  in  a high- 
backed  chair  (the  legs  of  which  project  into  the  side  border),  with 


Plate  XXVIII 


Munich  2421  (Pi:  uppee  three).  Brussels  R 227  (E  10:  lower) 


V 

• : 

? ^ 


PHINTIAS 


IIS 

an  olive  wreath  in  his  hair  and  draped  from  the  waist  downwards 
in  a mantle,  the  torso  being  bare.  In  both  hands  he  holds  a 
chelys  the  strings  of  which  he  seems  to  be  tuning.  Zig-zag 
pattern  on  the  cushion  of  the  chair.  Behind  him  ^MIKVGO^. 
Facing  him  stands  a boy  to  r.  wearing  a flower  wreath  and  en- 
tirely wrapped  in  a long  cloak  from  which  his  r.  thumb  and  fore- 
finger project.  In  front  of  him  TVEMPOVEMO^^  (retr.;  both 
M’s  are  written  upside  down).  Behind  him,  likewise  facing  the 
instructor  to  r.,  a youth  seated  in  a chair  without  a back,  draped 
in  a mantle  which  leaves  the  r.  shoulder  bare.  He  wears  a vine 
wreath  in  his  hair  and  holds  a chelys  on  which  he  is  playing  with 
the  plektron  held  in  his  r.  On  his  cheek  are  faint  whiskers.  The 
chair  cushion  has  a dotted  border.  In  front  of  him  EVTVMIAE:^ 
(retr.;  the  M upside  down).  Behind  him  to  r.  a bearded  man 
wearing  an  olive  wreath,  draped  in  a mantle  thrown  over  both 
shoulders  resting  his  r.  hand  on  his  hip,  and  supporting  himself  by 
a knobbed  staff  under  the  1.  arm-pit.  The  fringe  of  the  mantle  is 
ornamented  with  a row  of  dots.  In  front  of  him  [A]EMETPIO^. 
Behind  him  along  the  1.  border  NAIION.^ 

Shoulder.  S}Tnposium.  Two  hetairae  reclining  to  1.  on  cushions 
and  each  draped  in  a long  mantle  from  the  waist  down  leaving  the 
upper  part  of  the  body  bare.  The  one  on  the  1.  reclines  on  but 
one  cushion  and  wears  a saccos  in  her  hair.  She  holds  a kotyle 
by  the  handle  in  her  r.  and  raises  her  1.  while  turning  round  to 
address  her  companion.  Her  r.  foot  is  tossed  aloft:  in  front  of 
it  KAVOI.  The  other  reclines  on  two  cushions  and  wears  a broad 
fillet  in  her  hair.  In  her  r.  she  holds  a kotyle  by  the  handle  while 
her  1.  rests  idly  on  her  hip.  In  front  of  her  S0\  TENAI  EV0V- 
MIAEI.  The  cushions  are  ornamented  with  an  elaborate  pat- 
tern. 

^ Considerable  dispute  has  been  occasioned  by  this  last  inscription.  Jahn  read 
it  as  Zatfos  while  Klein  would  have  it  Zlcoo-tas.  Hartwig  on  the  other  hand  has 
pointed  out  that  all  the  other  figures  have  the  inscriptions  reading  from  the  top 
downwards  and  as  all  are  identified  by  name  it  would  seem  evident  that  we  do  not 
have  here  a name  of  any  figure.  Furtwangler’s  suggestion  (loc.  cit.  p.  64)  that  we 
should  read  it  as  val  ^C)v  seems  to  be  perhaps  the  best  that  is  afforded.  Natxt 've 
have  already  met  with  in  Euthymides’  work  and  this  would  seem  to  be  a laudatory 
inscription  of  the  same  order. 


I 1 6 EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  wreaths,  sash  and  cords  of 
the  chelydes;  anatomical  details  in  faint  lines,  as  well  as  some 
of  the  lines  in  the  drapery.  The  outline  of  the  hair  is  incised 
throughout  but  not  that  of  the  beard. 

Borders.  Identically  the  same  as  those  on  P IV  except  that  all 
are  b.f.  A 6 on  inside  of  rim  and  two  horns  on  either  side  of  the 
junction  of  the  rear  handle  and  rim.  R.f.  pal- 
mette  below  rear  handle  (Fig.  22).  Rays  and 
purple  stripes  on  base  and  foot.  A 6 at  the 
junction  of  side  handles  and  body.  Graffito 
on  foot  (Fig.  23)  precisely  similar  to  that  on 
PIV. 

That  the  vase  is  by  Phintias  a comparison 
with  P IV  makes  quite  evident,  the  bearded 
heads  and  the  figures  leaning  on  their  staffs  being  practically 
duplicates  in  both.  Other  characteristic  features  are  the  faint 
whiskers  under  the  jaw,  the  eyes,  collar  bones  with  their  small 
hooks,  parallel  lines  on  the  sternum,  knuckles,  finger-  and  toe- 


nails, ankles,  feet,  folds  and  ends  of  drapery,  dotted  border  of 
cloak,  and  pattern  on  the  chair-cushion  (as  in  P III).  But  aside 
from  these  details,  the  style  in  its  larger  sense  is  unmistakably 
that  of  Phintias. 

The  subject-matter  of  the  main  picture  calls  for  little  com- 
ment. One  is  reminded  instinctively  of  the  Douris  kylix  with 
the  school-scene,  in  Berlin,  (F.  R.  hi,  pi.  136,  pp.  87  ff.)  but  our 
hydria,  which  is  certainly  older,  may  claim  to  be  one  of  the 


PHINTIAS 


II7 


earliest  representations  of  such  a scene  — of  that  purely  genre  type 
which,  as  we  see  from  P III  and  IV,  were  favorites  of  Phintias. 
The  symposium  on  the  shoulder,  barring  that  the  figures  are 
female,  is  very  much  like  that  on  P IV  and  here,  as  there,  the 
game  of  kottabos  is  in  progress. 

The  inscriptions,  however,  are  the  most  significant  feature. 
On  the  strength  of  the  name  of  Euthymides  occurring  twice  both 
Brunn  and  Klein  have  assigned  the  vase  to  that  master.  But  the 
formula  (correctly  read  by  Furtwangler  as  aol  Trjvdl  EvOvfxidrjL 
(i.e.  Xara(7(7co),  is  a clear  dedication  and  nothing  else  and  cannot 
possibly  refer  to  the  painter  of  the  vessel:  further,  the  addition  of 
the  same  name  to  one  of  the  figures  in  the  main  picture  confirms 
this  supposition. 

Since,  therefore,  the  vase  is  clearly  to  be  assigned  to  the  hand 
of  Phintias  and  the  dedication  refers  to  some  one  else,  it  is  absurd 
to  suppose  that  any  one  other  than  the  artist  Euth^miides  can 
be  meant.  In  an  earlier  chapter  I called  attention  to  this  as  a 
strong  point  in  favor  of  the  professional  connection  existing  be- 
tween Phintias  and  Euth>miides. 

The  names  of  the  figures  are  all  more  or  less  significant.  Smiky- 
thos,  as  we  have  seen,  was  used  by  Euthymides  on  E V,  but  since 
it  is  hardly  likely  that  the  bearded  teacher  is  the  same  individual 
as  the  youth  on  the  hydria,  the  name  may  be  regarded  as  com- 
plimentary. 

The  boy  Tlenpolemos  is  not,  of  course,  the  ‘‘Lesser  Master” 
of  that  name,  though  as  Furtwangler  remarks,  he  might  be  his  son. 
Probably  some  Athenian  youth  of  a family  sufficiently  wealthy 
and  prominent  to  indulge  their  son  in  the  best  education  possible 
is  here  intended.  The  seated  youth  cannot  be  the  potter  Euthy- 
mides who  at  this  time  was  undoubtedly  much  older.  This  is 
merely  another  case  of  the  arbitrary  use  of  any  name  for  any 
figure.  We  have  the  same  thing  again  in  the  case  of  the  name 
Demetrios. 

The  inscription  along  the  1.  h.  border  has  already  been  com- 
mented on,  and  a discussion  of  the  graffito  on  the  base  will  be 
found  on  p.  107. 


1 1 8 EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 

P 2.  [Figs.  24  and  25]:  Hydria,  Munich  2422  (50).  From 

F.R.  ii,  p.  70,  figs.  30-32. 

Hartwig,  p.  194,  vii. 

Hackl,  pp.  40,  No.  422;  48,  No.  557. 

The  form  is  practically  identical  with  that 
of  P I except  that  the  separation  of  the  body 
and  shoulder  is  not  quite  so  marked.  The  vase 
has  been  extensively  restored  but  the  drawing 
in  F.  R.  gives  the  vase  without  restorations. 
Main  Picture.  Revel.  On  the  r.  a bearded 
man  seen  from  behind  draped  in  a mantle  over  both  shoulders, 
wearing  an  olive  wreath  in  his  hair  and  resting  his  1.  armpit  on  a 
knobbed  staff  while  his  r.  hand  is  placed  on  his  hip.  His  legs 
are  crossed.  Dotted  border  on  cloak.  Facing  him  to  r.  a youth 


with  a vine  wreath  in  his  hair  and  clad  in  a long  mantle  draped 
over  the  1.  shoulder  and  leaving  the  r.  shoulder  bare,  playing  the 
double  flutes.  Suggestion  of  whiskers  on  his  cheek.  Behind  him 
to  1.  a second  youth  with  a mantle  thrown  over  both  shoulders 
leaving  the  front  of  the  body  bare,  an  olive  wreath  in  his  hair. 


Vulci(?). 


PHINTIAS 


II9 


and  in  each  hand  the  krotala.  At  the  extreme  1.  of  the  group 
another  bearded  man  with  a cloak  draped  over  both  forearms, 
the  torso  and  body  being  bare,  holding  in  his  r.  a knobbed  staff, 
and  in  his  1.  a deep  kotyle.  The  back  of  his  head  and  shoulders 
and  most  of  the  central  parts  of  the  bodies  of  the  two  youths 
have  been  restored.  Senseless  inscriptions  in  field. 

Shoulder.  Two  silens  and  a doe.  The  one  on  the  r.  ithyphallic, 
seizes  the  animal  by  the  1.  hind  foot;  the  one  on  the  1.  holds  her 
by  one  horn.  Below  a volute  krater.  In  the  field  senseless  in- 


Fig.  25 


scrip tions  of  which  only  KAVO^  can  be  deciphered.  The  silens  are 
of  the  usual  type,  nude,  bearded,  and  wearing  olive  wreaths.  On 
the  body  of  the  doe,  markings. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions  and  wreaths.  Outline  of 
hair  incised  but  not  that  of  the  beards.  Anatomical  details  in 
fainter  hnes. 

Borders.  Precisely  the  same  as  those  on  P IV  except  that  the 
side  borders  of  the  shoulder  are  A 9.  Rays  and  purple  stripes  on 
foot.  A 6 inside  rim  and  at  base  of  the  side 
handles.  The  rear  handle  has  a female  head  at 
its  junction  with  the  rim.  Graffito  on  base  iden- 
tical with  that  of  P IV  and  i (Fig.  26). 

As  in  the  case  of  P i the  hand  of  Phintias  is 
very  apparent  on  this  hydria.  The  bearded 
heads,  profiles,  lines  on  the  sternum,  ankles, 
dotted  border  on  cloak  and  the  general  scheme  of  composition 
are  unmistakably  his.  The  revel  of  the  main  picture  presents 
httle  of  interest. 


120 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


That  the  shoulder  picture  is  by  the  same  hand  seems  to  me 
doubtful.  None  of  the  details  peculiar  to  Phintias  are  to  be  seen 
and  it  will  not  serve  to  assert  that  the  artist  drew  the  figures 
hastily  and  omitted  them  since  the  shoulder  of  P i is  drawn  with 
the  same  carefulness  of  detail  as  the  main  picture.  The  figures 
on  the  shoulder  of  P 2 are  certainly  not  drawn  carelessly  and  if 
the  details  are  omitted  it  was  probably  not  through  oversight. 
In  view  of  the  strong  similarity  between  the  hands  of  the  1.  h. 
silen  and  those  of  the  figures  on  E IV  together  with  this  absence 
of  detail,  I am  inclined  to  think  that  the  shoulder  may  possibly 
have  been  painted  by  Euthymides  though  I do  not  regard  this  as 
sufficiently  established  to  include  it  among  the  vases  assigned  to 
him. 

The  graffito  has  already  been  commented  on  {v.  p.  107).  It  is 
doubtful  whether  the  absence  of  the  1.  leg  of  the  youth  with  the 
krotala  is  to  be  explained  by  carelessness  on  the  part  of  the 
painter  (as  was  the  case  in  E III)  or  whether  it  was  raised  and 
concealed  behind  the  body  of  the  flute-player.  As  the  vase  is 
broken  at  this  point  it  is  impossible  to  say. 


P3.  [Pis.  XXIX  and  XXX]:  Hydria,  Louvre  G41.  Erom 
Etruria:  h.  m.  0.48.  The  vase  is  in  poor  condition  and  has 
been  extensively  restored,  including  the  main  and  r.  handles. 


Pettier,  Cat.  hi,  p.  910;  Album,  p.  143,  pi.  92. 

De  Witte,  Descr.  1837,  No.  71. 

Cat.  etr.  73:  Res.  etr.  46:  Notice,  1845,  p.  16. 

C.I.G.  7447. 

A.Z.  1843,  p.  401,  n.  10. 

Panofka,  V asenhildner , p.  204. 

Klein,  p.  196,  6:  L7.  p.  122,  i (inscriptions  incomplete) . 
Heydemann,  Pariser  Antiken,  p.  47,  No.  22  (false  read- 
ing of  the  inscriptions).  Satyr  u.  Bakchennam.,  p.  26. 
Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  17,  II. 

Wernicke,  p.  52,  n.  3. 

Hackl,  p.  40,  No.  423. 


Main  picture.  At  the  1.  Hermes,  bearded,  to  r.  looking  back- 
wards. He  wears  a short  chiton  and  cloak,  petasos  on  his  head 
and  high  boots  with  wings  on  his  feet;  in  his  r.  he  holds  the 
kerykeion  and  raises  his  1.  Beside  him  HEPME^-fA[IPE?]. 


Plate  XXIX 


Louvre  G41  (P3) 


Plate  XXX 


Louvre  G41  (P3) 


4 


PHINTIAS 


I2I 


Next  to  r.  Dionysos,  bearded,  with  a vine  wreath  in  his  hair  and 
wearing  a long  Ionic  chiton  and  mantle.  In  his  r.  he  holds  a vine 
branch  with  leaves,  and  a kantharos  aloft  in  his  1.  Beside  him 
A10NV[:^0^]  (retr.).  Then  Ariadne  to  r.  but  with  head  and 
torso  turned  back  towards  Dionysos,  with  a stephane  and  flower 
wreath  in  her  hair  and  clad  in  an  Ionic  chiton  and  long  cloak 
draped  over  her  1.  arm.  Beside  her  AI0N[V]$:0^  (retr.) 
written  by  mistake  for  APIAANE.  Behind  her  to  r.  Poseidon 
with  a laurel  wreath  on  his  head,  wearing  a long  chiton  and 
cloak,  the  trident  in  his  r.  and  a small  dolphin  in  his  upraised  1. 
In  the  field  [r]0[$^]EI40N].  Facing  him  Amphitrite  clad  like 
Ariadne,  holding  a purple  flower  in  each  hand. 

Restorations.  Hermes:  face,  shoulder,  r.  arm,  1.  hand,  and 
lower  legs.  Dionysos;  cheek,  nose,  and  drapery.  Ariadne:  chin 
and  drapery.  Poseidon:  both  arms,  large  part  of  dolphin  and 
part  of  drapery.  Amphitrite:  both  arms,  most  of  her  head, 
drapery  and  the  flower  in  her  1. 

Shoulder.  Charioteer  in  the  act  of  mounting  a chariot  drawn 
by  four  horses  (two  raising,  two  lowering  their  heads).  He  wears 
a Corinthian  helmet,  and  is  nude  save  for  a short  cloak  wound 
around  his  waist.  In  his  1.  he  holds  the  reins  and  in  his  r.  the 
goad.  In  front  of  the  horses  a dog  with  his  r.  fore-paw  raised. 
At  the  1.  with  his  back  to  the  chariot  a warrior  stooping  to  pick  up 
his  spear,  carrying  a shield  in  his  1.  (device  cinquefoil(?)).  At  the 
r.,  with  his  back  to  the  horses,  a youthful  archer,  long-haired  and 
nude  save  for  a kidaris.  He  has  his  1.  leg  over  his  bow  in  the  act 
of  stringing  it.  Facing  him  a beardless  warrior,  nude  except  for  a 
Corinthian  helmet  and  greaves,  a sword-belt  and  sword  at  his 
side,  holding  his  spear  in  his  r.  and  stooping  to  pick  up  his  shield 
(device,  crane  or  some  sort  of  water-bird).  In  the  field  -f  APE^ 
(retr.)  +AIPE,  ^O^TPATO^,  +AIPE,  + AlPETO  EV0[V]- 
MIAE:^  (the  V upside  down). 

Restorations.  L.  h.  warrior:  helmet,  sword,  thighs,  and  part  of 
shield  device.  Archer:  head. 

Borders.  Main  picture.  Lower,  A 4 (a):  sides,  B i (/):  upper 
(forming  lower  border  of  shoulder)  A 9.  Shoulder,  upper,  A 6. 
Rays  around  base.  — A 6 at  base  of  handles  and  inside  rim. 


*c 


.i-. 


•i 

1 

,1 

4 


-■[j 


J 

1 


■ 1 
• ■ 


1 

I 


PHINTIAS 


123 


were  imported  into  Italy  by  the  same  dealer  at  the  same  time 
and  would  consequently  be  contemporaneous.  But  the  hydria  is 
obviously  more  archaic  in  style  than  the  three  others  and  can 
hardly  have  been  painted  at  the  same  time.  It  is  possible  that  it 
may  have  been  the  last  of  some  old  vases  left  on  the  dealer’s 
hands  and  sold  at  a bargain,  but  that  supposition  is,  of  course, 
pure  theory.  In  any  case,  the  available  evidence  speaks  more 
strongly  for  the  authorship  of  Phintias  than  for  any  other  painter 
and  until  more  definite  reasons  can  be  advanced  for  attributing 
the  hydria  to  another  artist  we  may  continue  to  regard  it  as  a 
product  of  the  Phintian  factory. 

P 4.  [PL  XXXI]:  Amphora,  Louvre  G42.  (Beugnot  ^ am- 
phora). From  Vulci:  h.  m.  0.60. 

Pettier,  Cat.  iii,  p.  912:  Albimi,  ii,  p.  143. 

De  Witte,  Cat.  Beugnot,  No.  4.  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1845,  p.  401. 

0 Klein,  p.  197,  No.  2:  Z/.p.  122,  No.  2 (attr.  to  Euthymides). 
C.I.G.  7421.  El.  Cer.  ii,  56  (obverse  only). 

Kretschmer,  p.  197. 

Jahn,  Arch.  Aiifs.  p.  128:  Munich  Cat.  cxvii,  note  850. 
Panofka,  AUgem.  Liter  at  urzeit.  1840,  p.  226. 

Overbeck,  KM.,  Apollon,  p.  370;  Atlas,  pi.  23,  4 (A). 
Gerhard,  Aus.  Vas.  22  = Reinach  ii,  p.  26  (side  A is  cor- 
rectly given  but  the  figures  of  B are  reversed). 
Wernicke,  p.  53. 

Jones,  J.H.S.  1891,  p.  370. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  pp.  17  c,  19. 

Pernice,  Jhh.  1908,  p.  99  (false  conclusions  as  to  the  atti- 
tude of  the  akontist  based  on  the  wrong  representation 
of  the  vase  in  the V asenhilder) . 

F.R.  ii,  pp.  273-276,  pi.  1 12  (Hauser). 

A.  Rape  of  Leto.  In  the  center,  Tityos,  nude  and  bearded, 
wearing  a flower  wreath  in  his  hair,  seizes  Leto  around  the  waist 
with  his  1.  arm,  both  his  hands  being  tightly  clasped  together, 
and  lifts  her  clear  of  the  ground.  She  is  clad  in  a long  Ionic 
chiton  and  a cloak  thrown  over  both  shoulders.  She  wears  a 
stephane  and  olive  wreath  in  her  hair  and  seizes  the  1.  arm  of 
Tityos  with  her  1.  hand  while  with  her  r.  she  raises  the  end  of  her 

^ The  amphora  was  formerly  in  the  possession  of  the  Vicomte  de  Beugnot  by 
whom  it  was  sold  to  William  Hope.  It  was  acquired  by  the  Louvre  in  1866. 


124 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


cloak  as  if  to  cover  her  face.  On  her  feet  are  sandals  the  straps 
of  which  have,  through  an  oversight,  been  omitted.  At  the  1. 
Apollo,  nude  except  for  a mantle  thrown  over  his  1.  upper  arm, 
with  a flower  wreath  in  his  hair,  hastens  to  his  mother’s  assist- 
ance, and  seizes  the  r.  elbow  of  Tityos  with  his  r.  while  with  his  1. 
he  grasps  the  1.  arm  of  Leto.  Over  his  shoulder,  hanging  up, 
his  bow  and  a quiver  ornamented  with  scales;  its  cover,  with  a 
pattern  of  volutes,  hanging  open.  Behind  him  + AIPE:  over 
his  head  KAIPE.  Between  him  and  Tityos  APOVVON.  At  the  r. 
of  the  picture  Artemis  to  1.  with  a long  Ionic  chiton  and  cloak 
draped  over  her  shoulders.  She  wears  an  olive  wreath  and 
stephane  and  carries  a bow  and  arrow  in  her  1.  while  raising 
her  r.  aloft  in  an  attitude  of  disapproval.  Between  her  and 
Leto  /VETOV^  (retr.):  above  her  r.  +A/PE  and  behind 

her  AIAO^. 

B.  Scene  from  the  Palais tra.  In  the  center  two  nude  youths. 
The  one  on  the  1.  faces  to  r.  with  an  olive  wreath  in  his  hair, 
and  holds  a discus  in  his  1.  while  raising  his  r.  with  the  fore- 
finger extended.  Over  his  head  ^O^TPATO^.  The  other 
youth  is  seen  with  his  head  in  profile  to  1.,  his  body  full  front, 
wearing  a flower  wreath  in  his  hair  and  holding  with  both  hands  a 
javelin  the  ankyle  of  which  has  been  omitted  through  an  oversight. 
Between  his  legs  + AIPE  and  between  the  two  youths  + APE^ 
(retr.).  At  the  r.  stands  an  older  athlete  bearded  and  nude,  to  1. 
also  wearing  an  olive  wreath  in  his  hair,  holding  a javelin  in  his  1., 
his  r.  resting  on  his  hip  while  he  watches  attentively  the  action 
of  his  neighbor.  Over  his  shoulder  KAVO^  and  behind  him 
(retr.).  Between  him  and  Chares  AEMO$^TPETE 
(last  five  letters  retr.).  At  the  extreme  1.  of  the  group  a bearded 
man  to  r.  with  a flower  wreath  in  his  hair,  draped  in  a long 
mantle  thrown  over  his  shoulder  which  leaves  his  r.  shoulder  and 
torso  bare.  In  his  r.  he  holds  a stick  with  a button  on  the  top, 
while  his  1.  is  wrapped  in  his  cloak.  In  front  of  him  ^OTINO^. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  wreaths,  and  the  cord  of 
Apollo’s  quiver.  Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines.  Whiskers  on 
the  cheeks  of  Apollo  and  the  two  youthful  athletes  of  the  reverse. 


^ The  last  two  letters  are  uncertain. 


PHINTIAS 


I2S 


The  outline  of  the  hair  is  incised  in  all  the  figures  except  in  the 
case  of  Leto  (where  it  is  reserved)  and  Tityos.  Incised  dots  in 
Apollo’s  krobylos. 

Borders.  The  same  on  both  sides.  Lower,  A 4 (a) : sides, 
B3  (a):  ‘ upper,  B i (6). 

The  form  and  decoration  of  the  vase  is  similar  in  all  respects  to 
that  of  the  Euthymidean  amphorae.  B.f.  palmettes  below  junc- 
tion of  handles  and  sides  (Fig.  28). 

The  Beugnot  amphora  stands  in  almost  the  same 
relation  to  the  work  of  Phintias  as  does  E III  to 
that  of  Euthymides  — by  far  the  chef  d’ceuvre  of 
the  unsigned  vases.  Considering  how  unmistak- 
ably it  bears  every  characteristic  mark  of  Phintias’ 
style  it  is  curious  that  Pottier  in  the  Louvre  Cata- 
logue should  still  cling  to  the  theory  that  it  is  a 
work  of  Euthymides. 2 Twenty-five  years  ago 

Stuart  Jones  assigned  it  correctly;  an  opinion  which  I followed 
in  my  earlier  essay  and  since  that  time  the  same  view  has  been 
elaborated  by  Hauser  (F.R.  loc.  cit.). 

Although  it  seems  almost  unnecessary,  I shall  indicate  briefly 
the  characteristic  details  which  show  its  origin.  The  hair  is 
arranged  in  Buckellockchen  ” and  the  noses  are  square  with  the 
nostrils  too  small.  The  ears  are  Phintian  and  the  collar  bones 
have  the  little  hooks.  The  abdominal  muscles  have  the  rounded 
0 form  and  the  sternum  is  marked  by  the  parallel  lines.  The  form 
of  the  penis  and  pubes  is  that  peculiar  to  Phintias  and  the  thighs 
have  the  characteristic  little  depression  between  the  muscles. 
The  fingers  hardly  curl  at  all  and  like  the  toes  are  provided  with 
nails  while  the  knuckles  are  carefully  defined.  The  ankles  are 
distinctly  in  his  manner,  the  soles  of  the  feet  have  the  usual  little 
relief  lines  while  the  drapery  with  its  faint  lines  on  the  chiton  and 
three  lines  at  the  neck  is  absolutely  Phintian.  In  fact  there  is  not 
a solitary  detail  which  is  not  his. 

^ Pottier’s  statement  {Album,  ii,  p.  144)  that  the  side  borders  of  the  reverse  are 
b.f.  palmettes,  is  incorrect. 

^ It  is  only  fair  to  say  that  M.  Pottier  in  conversation  with  me  last  year  ac- 
knowledged its  Phintian  origin. 


126 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


The  general  style  is  a good  criterion  since  one  has  only  to 
contrast  this  vase  with  E III  to  see  how  great  is  the  difference 
between  Phintias  and  Euthymides.  Here  we  have  extraordinary 
carefulness  in  detail  but  no  life;  Apollo  grasps  Leto’s  abductor  in 
a most  ladylike  fashion  and  even  Artemis,  as  Hauser  remarks,  in 
view  of  the  peril  that  confronts  her  mother  has  nothing  to  ejacu- 
late but  oh!  ” 

On  E HI  there  is  less  detail  but  better  foreshortening  and 
more  naturalism.  Certainly  the  r.  leg  of  Chares  on  P 4 is  less 
skilfully  drawn  than  the  r.  leg  of  Theseus  on  E HI  as  the  foot  is 
joined  to  the  ankle  in  an  unnatural  way.  The  only  instance  of 
carelessness,  however,  lies  in  the  omission  of  Leto’s  sandal-straps 
and  the  ankyle  of  the  javelin. 

The  inscriptions  are  somewhat  troublesome  and  abound  in  the 
usual  mistakes.  Of  the  three  on  the  obverse  only  one  is 

written  correctly.  Leto’s  name  occurs  in  the  genitive  (not  an 
unusual  feature)  but  with  the  lambda  duplicated,  once  in  the  Attic 
and  once  in  the  Ionic  form.  Only  Apollo  and  Leto  are  designated 
by  name. 

The  inscription  behind  Artemis  is  very  problematical.  Jahn 
(Arch.  Aufsdtze,  128)  and  Panofka  {Allg.  Lit.  Ztg.  1840,  p.  226) 
have  advanced  the  theory  that  the  genitive  form  ’Aprept5os 
was  intended,  the  other  letters  having  disappeared  — a natural 
and  plausible  suggestion  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  vase  is 
intact  at  this  point.  Kretschmer  (op.  cit.)  has  endeavored  to 
justify  AtScos  as  an  epithet  of  Artemis,  an  explanation  which  is 
unsatisfactory  and  lacks  parallels.  Either  we  must  assume  that 
a mistake  occurred  and  the  artist  intended  to  write  Artemis’  name 
or  take  it  as  an  expression  of  disapproval  (cf.  Iliad,  5,  787:  16, 
422).  Although  I know  of  no  similar  case  in  vase  inscriptions 
the  latter  seems  to  me  the  more  natural  assumption. 

Of  the  five  names  on  the  reverse,  four  refer  to  the  figures  and 
the  name  Demostratos  being  in  the  vocative  must  be  connected 
with  xatpe.  Chares  and  Sostratos  both  occur  on  P 3 as  well  as 
on  P 6.  Sosias  seems  to  be  the  only  possible  combination  for  the 
name  of  the  Paidotribes.  Sotinos  occurs  for  the  first  time. 


Plate  XXXII 


Boston  01.8019  (P  6) 


i 


r 


1 


-i 

I 


Plate  XXXIII 


Boston  01.8019  (P  6) 


J 


s. 

I 


PHINTIAS  127 

P 5.  [PL  VIII]:  Obverse  of  Amphora,  British  Museum  E 255 

= E 2.  (For  description  and  literature  v.  p.  48). 

In  chapter  iv  the  reverse  of  this  amphora  was  discussed  at 
length  and  there  attributed  to  Euthymides  while  the  obverse  was 
given  to  Phintias.  The  build  of  the  figures,  the  use  of  Buckel- 
lockchen”,  profiles,  anatomical  development,  finger-nails,  shape  of 
penis,  ankles,  and  drapery  are  all  in  the  manner  of  Phintias  and  not 
of  Euthymides,  while  all  these  details  are  treated  in  an  entirely 
different  fashion  on  the  reverse.  The  composition  drawings  (Pis. 
XLV,  XL VII)  show  that  the  figure  of  Herakles  ^ is  practically  a 
duplicate  of  the  similar  figure  on  P II  (barring  the  beard)  while 
the  chiton  of  Artemis  with  its  excessive  amount  of  faint  lines  is 
almost  the  same  as  that  of  the  maenad  Kisine  on  the  same  vase. 

Three  of  the  figures  are  identified  by  inscriptions  (that  of 
Herakles  obviously  needed  none)  which  present  no  difficulty. 
The  letters  in  the  formula  AE-j-IO^  PAVO^  (‘‘  the  cast  is  propi- 
tious ”)  are  perfectly  clear  but  the  formula  is  new  and  does  not, 
to  my  knowledge,  occur  on  any  other  vase.  We  must  either  adopt 
this  reading  or  else  assume  that  AE+IO^  KAVO:^  was  intended, 
and  the  P written  in  error  for  K,  which  is  unsatisfactory  as  there 
is  no  instance  of  Dexios  as  a proper  name.  The  inscriptions  on 
the  reverse  are  entirely  senseless. 

P6.  [Pis.  XXXII  and  XXXIII] : Psykter  (Bourguignon), 

Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts  01.8019.  From  Orvieto:  h.  m. 

0.342. 

Ann.  Rep.  Mus.  F.  A.  1901,  p.  33,  n.  9. 

Hauser,  Jhh.  1895,  pp.  108-113. 

Ant.  Denk.  ii,  pi.  20. 

Hartwig,  Jhh.  1892,  p.  157,  note  6. 

Klein,  LI.,  p.  123,  No.  4. 

F.R.  ii,  p.  274,  Note  i,  h. 

The  form  is  that  common  to  the  class  except  that  it  has  no 
handles  and  a flatter  curve  to  the  belly  than  the  Turin  and  British 

^ Somewhat  akin  to  the  figure  of  Herakles  (though  not  by  the  same  hand)  are 
the  figures  on  the  Vatican  amphora,  (Gerhard,  Ans.  126  = Reinach  ii,  p.  68) 
and  a kalyx  krater  in  the  Brit.  Mus.,  E 458  (Mow.  d.  Inst,  ii,  pi.  25  = Reinach  i, 
P-  97). 


128 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Museum  psykters.  Numerous  fragments  are  missing.  The  draw- 
ing in  the  Ant,  Benk.  gives  the  vase  without  the  restorations 
but  not  very  accurately.  There  is  no  separation  of  the  figures 
by  palmettes  as  is  the  case  in  the  two  psykters  by  Euthymides. 

A bearded  Paidotribes  to  r.  wearing  a laurel  wreath  in  his  hair, 
and  clad  in  a long  cloak  which  leaves  the  r.  arm  and  breast  bare, 
holds  in  his  r.  a long  stick  forked  at  the  ends  while  his  1.  is  wrapped 
in  his  mantle.  In  front  of  him  his  name  ^IMON,  and  along  his 
leg  EOrrOKI.  At  the  r.  a nude  ephebos  with  a victor’s  crown 
stooping  to  r.  and  holding  a javelin  with  both  hands.  Beside 
him  <l>IVON.  Facing  him  another  nude  ephebos  (most  of  his 
head  missing)  preparing  to  throw  a javelin  which  he  holds  by  the 
amentum  in  his  r.  while  touching  the  point  with  his  1.  Over  his 
1.  arm  ETEA  P + 0^.  Next,  to  r.  another  instructor  clad  similarly 
to  Simon,  but  beardless,  in  the  same  attitude  holding  a curved 
stick  in  his  r.  with  which  he  seemingly  threatens  the  next  figure. 
Beside  him  PTOIOAOPO^.  Then  come  two  nude  epheboi  each 
wearing  a victor’s  crown.  The  first  crouches  to  r.  and  holds  a 
javelin  in  each  hand.  Along  the  javelin  :^0TPAT0$^.  His  fellow 
facing  to  1.  is  in  the  act  of  hurling  the  javelin  which  he  holds  by 
the  amentum  in  his  outstretched  r.  while  presumably  testing  the 
point  with  his  1.  (the  central  part  of  his  body  is  missing).  Over 
his  1.  shoulder  EKPATE^;  along  his  1.  side  EVIOIA^  (retr.). 

Although  no  separation  exists  in  the  two  sides  the  two  bearded 
instructors  practically  divide  the  subject  into  two  groups  of  six 
figures  each,  an  arrangement  which  has  been  followed  in  the  plate 
in  the  Ant.  Benk.  Continuing  we  have  the  bearded  instructor 
EVAEMO^  wreathed,  bearded,  and  clad  Hke  his  fellows  striding 
forward  with  bent  head  to  r.  holding  his  staff  aloft  in  his  1.,  and 
his  r.  with  extended  forefinger  raised  as  if  to  warn  the  two  wrest- 
lers. Both  are  nude  and  wear  no  wreaths.  One,  :^0:^PAT0:^ 
has  seized  his  opponent  EriVVK[0^]  firmly  by  the  waist;  the 
latter  stretches  out  both  hands  palms  together  like  a diver.  They 
are  watched  by  a fourth  bearded  instructor  (as  only  his  head  and 
shoulders  are  preserved  we  can  only  assume  that  he  was  clad  like 
the  others)  whose  name  is  wanting. 


PHINTIAS 


129 


Last  comes  a group  of  two  javelin-throwers,  both  nude,  and 
wearing  victor’s  crowns,  who  stand  entirely  detached  from  the 
other  figures.  The  one  on  the  1.  (only  the  body  from  his  waist  up 
and  his  r.  foot  preserved)  holds  the  javelin  by  the  point  in  his 
1.  and  stretches  out  his  r.  Only  five  letters  of  his  name  + ^ENO 
can  be  read  with  certainty.  His  companion  <t>AVVO[^]  faces 
him  to  1.  holding  the  javelin  easily  in  one  hand  while  raising  his 
r.  as  if  to  give  advice. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  wreaths,  and  amenta  of  the 
javelins.  Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines.  Outline  of  hair  is 
incised  though  unequally  as  the  figures  from  Xenon  to  Etearchos 
have  the  incision  carried  from  the  nape  of  the  neck  to  the  fore- 
head, while  in  the  others  the  line  is  not  incised  the  whole  way.  It 
would  seem,  as  remarked  by  Hauser,  that  one  side  was  intended 
to  be  the  front  and  was  consequently  finished  more  carefully 
than  the  other. 

The  frieze  is  framed  above  and  below  by  a broad 
reserved  stripe,  above  the  upper  stripe  A 6 and  three  pur- 
ple stripes  on  the  neck.  On  belly  and  foot  two  more 
purple  stripes.  Graffito  on  foot  (Fig.  29).^ 

That  the  psykter,  as  asserted  by  Hauser,  is  by  Phintias,  seems 
to  me  certain.  A brief  comparison  with  P IV  and  4 will  show  how 
marked  are  all  the  Phintian  characteristics.  The  heads,  profiles, 
anatomical  details,  use  of  finger-nails,  ankles,  drapery,  etc.  are  all 
distinctly  in  his  style.  But  the  vase  represents  an  advance  in  the 
treatment  of  his  material  and  the  technique  has  materially 
improved.  If  the  figure  of  Etearchos  be  contrasted  with  his 
fellow  on  P 4 it  can  easily  be  seen  how  infinitely  more  successful 
is  the  foreshortening  of  the  1.  leg.  No  longer  do  we  have  the  over- 
elaborate detail  which  has  been  so  marked  in  all  his  work,  but  a 
broader  handling  and  freer  treatment.  The  heads  are  no  longer 
all  alike,  and  that  of  Sostratos  who  holds  the  two  spears,  with  its 
tightly  closed  mouth  is  individual  enough  to  be  a portrait,  while 
the  head  of  Philon  possesses  the  same  charm  as  the  youth  on  P HI. 
The  foreshortening  is  everywhere  successful  and  it  must  be 

^ The  graffito  is  not  given  by  Hackl.  Both  signs,  however,  occur  in  class  xxxii  of 
his  catalogue  on  p.  33,  251-288. 


Fig.  29 


130 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


admitted  that  the  psykter  surpasses  anything  in  Euthymides’ 
work. 

Another  advance  lies  in  the  grouping  of  the  figures.  First  the 
lack  of  any  separation  of  the  groupj>  shows  a later  stage  of  the 
vase-painter’s  art.  If  the  composition  be  analyzed  it  will  be  seen 
that  there  is  an  instructor  to  each  pair  of  athletes.  As  the  effect 
of  four  groups  of  three  figures  each  might  have  been  monotonous, 
variety  has  been  secured  by  having  the  group  of  wrestlers  watched 
by  the  two  instructors  and  leaving  the  two  akontists  to  themselves 
— making  the  whole  effect  more  pleasing  and  in  no  way  causing 
any  asymmetry. 

Of  the  names/  that  of  Sostratos  occurs  twice  (each  time  mis- 
spelled) and  has  already  been  met  with  on  P 3 and  4.  Ekrates  is, 
of  course,  written  by  mistake  for  Eukrates.  The  name  of  Phayl- 
los  was  used  by  Euthymides  (E  IV)  and  from  the  fact  that 
Eledemos  is  the  name  of  one  of  the  komasts  on  E I,  Hauser  is 
inclined  to  think  that  possibly  the  same  name  may  have  been 
intended  for  Eudemos.  Though  there  is  nothing  to  forbid  it, 
Epilykos  ^ can  hardly  have  been  the  artist  of  that  name  and  the 
designation  is  merely  applied  like  any  of  the  others  to  distinguish 
one  of  the  athletes.  Xeno-  was  probably  some  such  combination 
as  Xenokles.  For  Philon  and  Smikythos  v.  p.  30.  Simon, 
Etearchos,  Eukrates,  and  Ptoiodoros  occur  for  the  first  time. 

P 7.  [PI.  XXXIV]:  Stamnos,  Leipzig.  (Fragments.)  From 

Naples:  h.  (estimated)  m.  0.35. 

Hauser,  Jhh.  1896,  p.  184,  figs.  26  A and  B. 

Jones,  J.H.S.  1891,  pp.  368  ff.  pis.  22  and  23. 

Hartwig,  p.  190,  i. 

1 It  may  be  remarked  that  the  application  of  the  names  to  the  various  figures  is 
by  no  means  certain.  Out  of  thirteen  inscriptions,  two,  EVIOIA^  and  EOrPOKh 
are  absolutely  senseless  and  cannot  be  twisted  into  names  or  a signature.  The 
names  of  the  first  six  figures  would  seem  quite  clear  but  of  the  next  six  it  is  uncertain 
whether  Eudemos  belongs  to  the  instructor  or  to  one  of  the  wrestlers.  Most  prob- 
ably the  name  of  the  trainer  whose  body  is  missing  has  been  lost  as  well  and  the 
names  are  to  be  assigned  as  in  the  above  description. 

2 Those  who  agree  with  Buschor  Jhh.  1915,  pp.  36-40  in  refusing  to  recognize 
the  existence  of  the  artist  Epilykos  will  undoubtedly  consider  this  as  a contemporary 
use  of  the  /caXos  name  used  by  Skythes. 


Plate  XXXIV 


Leipzig  (P  7) 


rJ 


PHINTIAS 


131 

A.  Peleus  and  Thetis.  The  scene  is  very  fragmentary  but  as 
traces  of  a panther  are  to  be  seen  on  a fragment  with  the  arm  and 
breast  of  Peleus  the  identification  of  the  figures  is  probably 
correct.  Also  another  fragment  has  VE.  On  either  side  of  the 
central  figures  a nymph  in  flight.  Near  the  upper  border  NTIA. 

B.  Athletic  Scene.  Javelin-thrower,  discobolus  and  flute- 
player  wearing  a wreath  and  a long  mantle. 

Both  groups  are  separated  by  an  elaborate  series  of  r.f.  pal- 
mettos. Below  A3  (a),  above  B i (Z>).  Above  that,  A 6.  Purple 
is  used  for  the  inscriptions  and  wreath.  Anatomical  details  in 
faint  lines.  Outline  of  hair  incised. 

In  view  of  the  extremely  fragmentary  condition  of  the  vase  its 
attribution  is  a matter  of  some  difficulty.  As  already  noted,  the 
figures  of  the  javelin-thrower  and  the  flute-player  are  almost 
identical  with  the  figures  on  E 9,  while  the  javelin-thrower  also 
finds  his  parallel  on  K 4.  Judging  by  the  anatomical  details  and 
the  profile  of  the  discobolus,  Jones  and  Hauser  would  seem  to 
be  right  in  attributing  the  vase  to  Phintias.  The  drapery  is 
certainly  in  his  style. 

The  restoration  of  the  inscription  to  [$t]t^rta[s]  offers  some 
difficulty.  It  would  serve  equally  well  to  read  it  as  [’A]t^rta[s] 
and  cite  the  Dresden  kalpis  with  its  similar  figures  and  name  as  a 
parallel.  But  both  restorations  are  unsatisfactory  since  there 
seems  no  space  for  the  verb  and  none  at  all  for  a final  sigma. 
Moreover,  if  Antias  were  the  name  we  should  have  expected  to 
find  it  on  the  reverse  as  the  name  of  one  of  the  athletes.  As 
the  figure  of  Peleus  is  presumably  identified  by  an  inscription  the 
more  natural  explanation  would  be  to  regard  it  as  the  name  or 
part  of  the  name  of  the  r.  h.  figure  on  the  obverse  as  the  fragment 
can  only  belong  to  that  side.  Unfortunately  I can  find  no  com- 
bination to  fit  which  could  possibly  belong  to  any  nymph  or 
nereid  who  as  a companion  of  Thetis  might  reasonably  be  looked 
for  in  the  group.  As  we  frequently  see  a letter  omitted  in 
inscriptions,  especially  in  vases  in  Phintias’  style  the  name  may 
originally  have  been  ''kvreia  or  'Apraia  (cf.  Roscher’s  Lex.  i,  p. 
364)  and  the  fact  that  this  name  does  not  occur  elsewhere  is  not 
necessarily  an  argument  against  it. 


132 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


P8.  [Fig.  30]:  Kalyx-Krater,  Petrograd  (1275).  From  Caere. 

Only  a small  part  of  the  vase  is  old. 

Cat.  (Stephani)  No.  1275. 

Mon.  d.  Inst,  vi-vii,  pi.  34  = Reinach  i,  p.  152. 

Michaelis,  Ann.  d.  hist.  1859,  pp.  267  ff. 

Petersen,  A.  Z.  1879,  p.  9 (restorations  noted). 

Hartwig,  p.  190,  note  i (considers  the  krater  more  allied  in  style  to 
Euthymides) . 

Loewy,  Arch.  Epig.  Mitt.  aus.  Oester.  iv,  p.  220. 

Jones,  J.H.S.  1891,  p.  372. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  pp.  17  J,  19. 

Waldhauer,  Arch.  Anz.  1912,  pp.  104-110,  figs.  1-3. 

A . A youth,  nude,  except  for  a cloak  looped  around  his  waist, 
with  a flower  wreath  in  his  hair,  bending  forward  to  r.  and 
probably  supporting  a fallen  figure.  Beside  him  GE^EV^ 
KAVO^.  Only  his  head,  torso,  both  upper  arms  and  r.  upper  leg 
are  preserved.  In  front  of  him  the  branches  of  a tree  and  behind 
him  another  tree  on  which  a sword  in  its  scabbard  is  hanging.  At 
the  extreme  r.  traces  of  a third  tree. 

B.  Youthful  warrior  to  1.,  head  to  r.,  nude  except  for  a 
mantle  draped  over  his  shoulder.  He  wears  a Corinthian  helmet 
and  carries  a spear  in  his  r.  and  a shield  (seen  from  inside)  in  his  1. 
His  legs  from  below  the  r.  knee  and  the  1.  hip  are  missing.  Facing 
him  a bearded  warrior  (only  head,  part  of  shield  and  spear-head 
preserved)  wearing  a Corinthian  helmet  and  holding  some  object 
on  his  shoulder  with  his  r.  Beside  the  young  warrior  PATPO- 
KVO^,  beside  the  other  AIOWEAE[^]  (cf.  Waldhauer,  loc.  cit.  p. 
107,  note  2).  At  the  extreme  r.  traces  of  a spear-head  and 
thyrsos  projecting  into  the  upper  border  and  a rock  on  which  the 
hand  of  a figure  is  laid.  Part  of  the  arm  and  the  front  hair  of  this 
figure  is  preserved.  Beside  the  rock  [AION]V^O^. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions  and  sword-belt.  Hair  out- 
line partly  reserved  and  partly  incised,  with  “Buckellockchen” 
in  front.  Anatomical  details  on  the  figure  of  Theseus  in  relief 
lines,  in  the  warrior  on  reverse  in  faint  lines. 

Palmette  scrolls  (the  number  is  uncertain)  over  each  handle 
separating  the  two  sides.  Encircling  the  vessel  below  the  rim, 
A II  {b). 


PHINTIAS 


133 


Waldhauer  remarks,  what  is  at  once  apparent,  that  there  is  a 
great  difference  between  the  two  sides,  stylistically  as  well  as 
technically. 

Jones  has  already  assigned  the  vase  to  Phintias  and  as  far  as 
the  obverse  with  the  figure  of  Theseus  is  concerned  a comparison 
with  the  figures  of  Herakles  on  P II  and  Apollo  on  P 4 would 


Fig.  30 


seem  to  make  this  fairly  certain.  Not  enough  of  the  reverse  is 
left  to  decide  whether  it  was  painted  by  the  same  artist  as  the 
obverse  or  by  some  one  else.  I have  not  been  able  to  examine 
the  vase  personally  and  shall  content  myself  with  attributing 
only  the  obverse  to  Phintias. 

P 9.  [Fig.  31]:  Fragment,  Rome,  Villa  Giulia.  Inv.  No. 
22643.  From  some  large  vase,  perhaps  a stamnos.  Found  at 
Campagnano. 

Della  Seta,  Mon.  Ant.  Line.  23  (1913)  p.  282,  No.  7;  285,  fig.  4. 

Head  and  shoulder  of  a bearded  man  to  1.  wearing  a laurel 
wreath.  In  the  field  A.  Traces  of  a kymation  above.  The  frag- 


134 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Fig.  31 


ment  has  suffered  abrasions  especially  at  the  end 
of  the  nose  of  the  figure  which  did  not  originally 
have  such  a fox-like  expression. 

The  head  has  a certain  resemblance  to  that  of 
the  trainer  on  E II  as  well  as  to  the  r.  h.  figure 
on  P I,  so  that  it  is  difficult  to  decide  whether  it 
should  be  assigned  to  Euthymides  or  Phintias. 
On  account  of  the  shape  of  the  ear,  the  character 
of  the  incised  outline  of  the  hair,  and  the  pupil  of 
the  eye  being  set  nearer  the  center  than  is  the 
case  in  the  Euthymidean  eye,  I regard  the  claims 
of  Phintias  as  the  stronger.  Beazley,  again,  attrib- 
utes the  fragment  to  Oltos. 


CHAPTER  VI 


HYPSIS 

The  artist  Hypsis  is  known  to  us  only  by  two  vases  one  signed 
in  the  usual  way  with  eypacfyaev,  the  other  with  the  name  alone. 
Our  reasons  for  assigning  him  a place  in  the  company  of  Euthy- 
mides  are  that  not  only  is  his  work  remarkably  like  that  of 
Euthymides  in  point  of  style,  but  it  is  also  conceived  in  very 
much  the  same  spirit,  albeit  the  manner  is  slightly  more  archaic 
and  stilted.  As  Furtwangler  has  remarked,  he  is  one  of  those 
numerous  personalities  among  the  Athenian  vase-painters  who 
appear  and  then  disappear  leaving  but  few  traces  behind.  How- 
ever, certain  individual  touches  in  the  work  he  has  signed  have 
made  it  possible  to  identify  at  least  one  unsigned  vase,  and  I 
have  little  doubt  that  a systematic  search  among  the  various 
museums  will  reveal  other  examples  which  may  safely  be  attribu- 
ted to  his  hand. 

H I.  [PL  XXXV] : Hydria  in  Munich  (Jahn  4).  From  Vulci. 

Gerhard,  Aus.  Vas.  io3  = Reinach  ii,  p.  57. 

Brunn,  K.G.  ii,  p.  701. 

Meier,  P.J.,  A.  Z.  1884,  p.  252. 

Klein,  p.  198. 

F.R.  ii,  pp.  112-116,  pL  82. 

Hackl,  p.  40,  xlvi,  a 420:  49,  Ixix,  564. 

Walters,  i,  p.  429. 

Hartwig,  p.  81,  note  i. 

Main  Picture.  Amazons  arming.  In  the  center  an  Amazon 
to  r.  clad  in  a short  Ionic  chiton  with  kolpos,  an  Attic  helmet 
with  a tall  crest  on  her  head,  and  greaves  on  her  legs.  In  her 

^ The  b.f.  hydria  in  the  Palais  d’Ariana  in  Geneva,  which  is  a duplicate  of  the 
signed  hydria  in  Munich,  and  bears  Hypsis’  signature,  is  a modern  forgery,  pre- 
sented by  King  Ludwig  I of  Bavaria  to  the  celebrated  Lola  Montez  and  bought 
from  her  estate  by  Revillod.  Fortunately  for  the  Munich  collection  the  fair  dancer’s 
taste  lay  in  other  directions  and  the  forgery  was  not  discovered  at  the  time:  v.  F.  R. 
ii,  p.  1 16,  note  6. 


135 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


136 

r.  she  holds  a long  tuba  on  which  she  is  blowing,  and  in  her 
1.  a spear  while  a sword  in  its  scabbard  is  attached  by  a belt 
on  her  1.  side.  Beside  her  ANTiOPEA  and  over  her  1.  shoulder 
XEVXE.  At  her  r.,  looking  back  at  her,  a second  Amazon 
similarly  clad  holds  her  sword  in  its  scabbard  in  her  r.  while 
her  1.  supports  her  shield,  seen  fiom  the  back,  against  which 
rests  her  spear.  Beside  her  HV<l>OrVVE.  Along  the  r.  border 
the  signature  HV4>^I^  EAPA4>^EN.  On  the  1.  a third  Amazon 
to  r.,  clad  like  the  others  but  without  greaves  and  bareheaded. 
In  her  r.  she  holds  her  helmet  (Attic)  and  in  her  1.  her  spear. 
Her  shield  seen  in  profile  (device,  ivy  wreath)  rests  against 
her  1.  thigh.  She  wears  a sword  in  scabbard  fastened  to  a belt 
on  her  left  side  and  a fillet  in  her  hair.  Behind  her  her  name, 
ANAPOMA  + E the  first  five  letters  retrograde,  the  last  four  in 
the  usual  fashion. 

Shoulder.  On  the  r.  a bearded  man,  clad  in  a long  garment 
without  sleeves,  in  the  act  of  stepping  into  a chariot  drawn  by 
four  horses,  the  fourth  horse,  except  for  his  legs,  entirely  con- 
cealed by  the  third.  The  man  holds  a goad  in  his  r.  and  the  reins 
in  his  1.  Over  the  horses  KAVO:^  and  in  front  of  them  XAIPE. 
Behind  him,  two  nude  youths,^  each  on  a horse,  with  whips  in 
their  r.  hands;  the  youth  on  the  rear  horse  extending  his  r.  hand. 
Under  his  horse’s  tail  ^IMO^,  and  in  front  of  the  first  horse  a 
doubtful  inscription  which  Furtwangler  is  probably  right  in  read- 
ing HEPIO^. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  sword  belts  (dots  on  scab- 
bard in  white)  and  fillet.  No  anatomical  details.  Faint  lines 
used  on  the  chitons. 

The  form  is  that  of  P IV  with  the  shoulder  and  body  sharply 
separated,  and  has  the  usual  decoration.  Plain  cushion  foot  with 
graffito  {v.  Fig.  32)  similar  to  that  of  P IV. 

^ Hartwig  {MS.  p.  81,  note  i)  attributes  to  Hypsis  a kylix  in  the  Museo  Tar- 
quiniense,  Corneto,  which  has  on  the  interior  a young  horseman,  and  a race  of 
fifteen  young  riders  on  the  exterior,  with  the  inscription  PEAIEV^  KAVO^ 
{v.  Klein,  LI.  p,  70,  No,  3)  on  the  strength  of  the  similarity  between  them  and 
the  young  horsemen  on  the  shoulder  of  HI.  As  I have  not  seen  the  Corneto 
vase  nor  any  photograph  of  it,  I am  unable  to  make  any  comment  as  to  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  attribution. 


Plate  XXXV 


Munich  (H  I) 


r 


A 


! 


HYPSIS 


137 


picture) 


Fig.  32 


Borders.  Main  picture,  lower  and  sides  the  same,  B 3 {a): 
upper,  A 8 {a)  (which  forms  the  lower  border  for  the  shoulder 
Shoulder,  sides,  A 9:  upper,  A 6 which  is  also  used  at 
the  base  of  the  side  handles.  The  helmet 
and  spear  project  into  the  upper  border,  and 
the  shield  into  the  r.  h.  border. 

There  is  little  in  the  composition  or  in  the 
working  out  of  the  details  that  needs  com- 
ment. The  drawing  is  very  careful  and  line, 
though  as  in  some  of  Euthymides’  vases,  the  inscriptions  have 
been  carelessly  done,  not  only  in  the  forms  of  the  names,  but 
in  their  execution. 

For  Hyphopyle,  Jahn  has  proposed  to  read  'T\^t7ruXr7,  a sug- 
gestion which  seems  to  me  good,  though  there  is  no  known  record 
of  such  a name  applied  to  an  Amazon.  Both  of  the  other  figures 
bear  names  already  used  for  Amazons  and  one  of  these  names, 
Antiopea,  is  used  by  Euthymides  (E  III,  A).  An  error  occurs  in 
the  drawing  of  the  central  Amazon  who  has  a left  hand  on  the 
r.  wrist. ^ 

For  instances  of  the  use  of  the  Tyrrhenian  trumpet,  cf.  Hart- 
wig,  loc.  cit.  p.  276,  note  i,  who  fails  to  distinguish,  however,  be- 
tween the  trumpet  held  down  and  those  extended  in  the  air. 

The  graffito  is  significant  as  it  is  practically  identical  or  at 
least  very  similar  with  those  on  the  bases  of  P IV,  1,2,  and  3 (v. 
p.  107).  As  we  have  seen,  this  was  the  mark  of  the  dealer  and  the 
conclusion  is  thus  justified  that  the  Hypsis  hydria  was  imported 
into  Italy  by  the  same  dealer  who  imported  the  Phintias  hydriae. 
It  may  be  remarked  that  while  the  presence  of  the  graffito  is  not 
necessarily  proof  that  H I and  the  four  Phintias  hydriae  came 
from  the  same  workshop  (the  dealer  might  perfectly  well  have 
made  a choice  from  several  of  the  Athenian  workshops)  it  is  cer- 
tainly curious  that  vases  as  closely  allied  in  style  as  are  these  five 
should  be  provided  with  the  marks  of  the  same  dealer,  and  makes 
it  by  no  means  impossible  that  Hypsis  should  have  been  one  of 
the  painters  in  Phintias’  atelier. 

^ As  was  pointed  out  before  (p.  84),  Euthymides  has  been  guilty  of  the  same 
error  in  the  Leipzig  kylix  (E  15). 


138 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


H II.  [PL  XXXVI]:  Hydria  (kalpis)  in  Rome,  Torlonia  Col- 
lection. From  Vulci:  h.  m.  0.43.  Shoulder  picture  only. 

Ant.  Denk.  ii,  pi.  8 (described  there  by  Hartwig). 

Helbig,  Bull.  d.  Inst.  1883,  p.  166. 

Klein,  p.  197. 

Kretschmer,  p.  199,  note  i. 

F.R.  ii,  pp.  114-116,  fig.  28. 

Walters,  i,  p.  429,  note  5. 

Buschor,  p.  152,  fig.  108. 

In  the  center  a building  with  two  Doric  columns  enclosing  a 
fountain  with  two  jets,  that  on  the  r.  in  the  form  of  a lion’s  head, 
the  other  a head  of  a silen.  Over  the  columns  a pediment  roof 
with  a toothed  cornice  and  two  spirals  on  the  corners.  The  build- 
ing rests  on  two  steps  and  a third  is  under  the  jets.  Under  the 
r.  h.  jet  is  a hydria  of  the  older  form  into  which  the  water  is  flow- 
ing, and  beside  it  KPENE.  Entering  the  fountain  is  a maiden  to 
1.,  clad  in  an  Ionic  chiton  and  himation,  with  a fillet  in  her  hair, 
holding  the  edge  of  her  skirt  with  her  1.  and  adjusting  the  cushion 
on  her  head  with  her  r.  Along  the  r.  border  the  name 
On  the  opposite  side  another  maiden  enters  similarly  clad,  with 
the  cushion  still  on  her  head,  a fillet  in  her  hair,  holding  in  both 
her  hands  a hydria  of  the  later  shape.  She  is  just  about  to  place 
the  vessel  below  the  1.  h.  jet  from  which  the  water  is  running. 
Inside  the  house  along  the  jet  A ION  V:^  I A. 

Along  the  belly  of  the  vase  B i ih):  lower  border  of  picture 
A 7 : at  sides,  A 8 (d):  above,  A 9. 

As  far  as  can  be  seen  from  the  Plate  in  the  Ant.  Denk.  (I  have 
not  examined  the  original)  the  drawing  is  careful  and  good.  The 
hair  of  the  1.  h.  maiden  is  done  in  similar  fashion  to  that  of 
Andromache  on  H I.  The  legs  of  both  figures  show  through  the 
drapery.  Outline  of  hair  reserved.  In  spite  of  the  later  shape  of 
the  hydria  the  whole  scene  is  conceived  in  the  spirit  of  the  b.f. 
style. 

The  chief  interest  centers  in  the  inscriptions.  The  signature  is 
without  the  verb  to  be  sure,  but  in  view  of  the  similarity  of  style 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  we  have  a definite  signature  of  the 
artist,  the  verb  being  omitted  as  sometimes  occurs.  Hartwig 
(loc.  cit.)  has  attempted  to  show  that  the  name  refers  to  one  of 


Plate  XXXVI 


Torlonia  Collection,  Rome  (H  II) 


HYPSIS 


139 


the  maidens  and  ALovvaia  to  the  other.  While  this  is  possible  it 
is  very  doubtful  indeed.  Infinitely  more  probable  is  it  that 
Aiovvaia  goes  with  Kprjvr]  and  ’'"^\pLs  is  the  artist’s  signature.  In 
that  case  we  may,  as  Furtwangler  has  suggested,  see  here  an 
attempt  on  the  part  of  the  artist  to  represent  the  Enneakrunos 
excavated  by  Ddrpfeld,  the  identification  of  which  is  now,  I 
believe,  generally  accepted  by  scholars. 

The  Ixscriptioxal  Evidexce.  We  have  seen  that  in  the 
two  signatures  only  one  has  the  complete  formula  and  the  other 
lacks  the  verb.  Although  this  is  not  the  usual  method  we  have 
e\ddence  in  the  case  of  two  vases  signed  by  Psiax  that  the  verb 
was  omitted  and  since  in  the  Torlonia  hydria  the  name  Dionysia 
is  applied  more  probably  to  the  fountain  and  not  to  one  of  the 
maidens  it  is  improbable  that  one  of  the  figures  should  have  a 
name  and  not  the  other;  therefore  we  are  justified  in  regarding 
H}psis  as  the  masculine  and  not  the  feminine  form.  Barring  the 
use  of  some  senseless  inscriptions  on  the  ^lunich  hydria,  a com- 
mon enough  feature  in  vases  of  the  period  as  we  have  already 
seen,  there  is  little  that  calls  for  any  comment.  It  may  be  men- 
tioned that  the  form  of  the  letters  of  the  inscriptions  is  identically 
the  same  on  both  vases. 

The  Use  of  the  koXos  Xame.  The  names  on  the  Torlonia 
hydria  need  not  be  considered  in  this  connection.  On  H I occur 
the  names  of  Antiopea  (used  by  Euth}Tnides)  and  Andromache, 
both  names  applied  to  Amazons;  the  third,  whether  we  read 
H}phopyle  or  H}psipyle  is  new.  is  of  course,  a senseless 

inscription.  On  the  shoulder  the  two  names  Simos  andHerios(?) 
obviously  refer  to  the  youths  on  horseback  and  /caXos  and 
are  applied  to  them,  so  that  we  might  consider  yaTpe'^IIptos  used 
in  the  same  way  as  yc^fp^  Qrjaevs  on  E III,  B. 

His  Coxxectiox  with  Euthymides.  Since  we  have  no 
internal  inscriptional  evidence  to  throw  any  light  on  the  activity 
of  H}psis  our  assumption  of  his  possessing  any  connection  with 
Euth}Tnides  must  be  based  on  certain  stylistic  resemblances  and 
the  fact  that  both  use  the  same  name  Antiopea  although  that 
name  is  employed  purely  to  designate  a figure  and  in  no  sense  as 
a KaXos  name.  In  particular  such  similarities  of  style  narrow 


140 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


down  to  a treatment  of  drapery  and  a use  of  the  same  decorative 
patterns,  though  the  general  features  are  singularly  alike  in  both 
artists,  the  work  of  Hypsis  being  slightly  more  archaic  and  formal. 
Whether  we  are  justified,  in  view  of  these  facts,  in  regarding 
Hypsis  as  an  actual  member  of  the  same  atelier  as  Euthymides  or 
Phintias  is  distinctly  problematical.  But  after  eliminating  certain 
conventional  characteristics  which  are  peculiar  to  all  the  artists 
at  this  time  it  is  clear  that  two  distinct  groups  are  to  be  recog- 
nized — the  painters  who  are  allied  in  style  to  Euphronios  and 
those  who  work  more  in  the  manner  of  Euthymides.  It  is  to  the 
latter  class  that  Hypsis  belongs  and  in  view  of  the  striking  simi- 
larity between  his  work  and  that  of  Euthymides,  I am  inclined  to 
think  that  he  may  actually  have  been  associated  with  him  in  his 
workshop. 

Style.  It  is  unfortunate  that  we  have  not  more  comprehensive 
material  on  which  to  base  our  conclusions  as  to  the  characteristics 
of  the  style  of  Hypsis.  The  Plate  of  the  Torlonia  hydria  is  not 
very  satisfactory  so  we  are  forced  to  depend  almost  entirely  on  the 
Munich  hydria.  Of  that,  however,  we  possess  a perfect  drawing 
in  which  all  the  artist’s  idiosyncracies  stand  out  very  clearly.  We 
shall  follow  the  same  method  that  we  have  heretofore  pursued  in 
our  analysis  of  the  work  of  Euthymides  and  Phintias. 

1.  Hair.  The  hair  is  treated  as  a solid  mass  without  any 
incised  lines,  with  frizzed  hair  over  the  forehead,  ringlets  over  the 
shoulders.  When  a fillet  is  worn  the  back  hair  is  separated  into 
two  clubs  with  a projection  in  front.  Euthymides  treats  the  hair 
on  his  figures  in  a slightly  similar  fashion. 

2.  Eyebrows.  The  eyebrows  are  represented  as  in  Euthy- 
mides’ work. 

3.  Eyes.  The  eyes  are  either  a dot  or  a dot  in  a circle  and 
almond-shaped.  Hypsis,  however,  places  the  pupil  more  directly 
in  the  center  of  the  eye  than  do  the  others. 

4.  Nose.  The  noses  are  like  those  of  Euthymides’  figures, 
with  the  usual  employment  of  faint  or  relief  lines  to  mark  the 
separation  of  both  cheeks  and  nostrils. 

5.  Mouth.  The  mouths  are  like  those  of  Euthymides  with 
an  indication  of  the  lips  in  faint  lines. 


HYPSIS  1 41 

6.  Chin.  The  chins  are  slightly  inclined  to  fullness  with  a sus- 
picion of  a double  chin. 

7.  Ears.  The  ears  constitute  one  of  Hypsis’  most  salient 
peculiarities,  the  lobe  ending  in  two  projections.  No  other  artist, 
as  far  as  I know,  treats  ears  in  this  way.^ 

8.  Beard.  We  have  only  two  beards  (that  of  the  charioteer 
on  H I and  the  silen  head  on  H II) ; they  differ  in  no  way  from 
the  usual  manner  in  which  beards  are  represented  in  this  period. 

9.  Neck.  The  necks  are  rather  inclined  to  thinness. 

10.  Anatomy.  As  the  only  nude  figures  are  those  of  the  two 
youths  on  the  shoulder  of  the  Munich  hydria,  very  sketchily 
drawn,  we  can  hazard  no  conclusions  as  to  the  way  Hypsis 
treats  the  anatomy  of  his  figures.  The  manner  in  which  the 
breast  of  Hyphopyle  is  drawn,  ending  in  a sharp  point,  is 
individual. 

11.  Arms.  The  arms  are  rather  heavy  with  the  elbow  sharply 
emphasized;  no  trace  of  finger-nails. 

12.  Legs.  The  legs  are  heavy  with  the  thigh  out  of  proportion 
to  the  lower  leg.  The  knee,  even  under  the  greaves,  is  sharply 
defined  with  one  or  two  projections.  Greaves  have  a pattern  like 
those  of  Hector  on  El,  A.  The  ankles  are  marked  by  a double 
faint  line. 

13.  Feet.  The  feet  are  too  long  and  rather  sketchy.  No 
trace  of  toe-nails. 

14.  Drapery.  As  in  Euthymides’  work,  faint  lines  close 
together  are  used  to  indicate  thin  material  in  the  drapery.  An 
individual  touch  lies  in  the  manner  in  which  the  borders  of  the 
chitons  are  treated,  being  much  rounder  than  in  the  drapery  of 
either  Euthymides  or  Phintias,  practically  all  the  lines  being 
curved. 

15.  Wreaths.  There  are  no  wreaths,  and  only  the  usual 
fillets  on  the  heads  of  the  maidens  on  H II  and  the  1.  h.  Amazon 
on  HI. 

16.  Borders.  No  new  borders  are  used,  and  all  can  be  dupli- 
cated in  the  work  of  both  Phintias  and  Euthymides.  In  H I we 

^ The  ear  used  by  the  Troilos  Master  on  the  Brit.  Mus.  hydria  E 175  {v.  Beazley, 
J.H.S.  1912,  p.  171,  no.  2,  pi.  iii)  resembles  the  Hypsis  ear  slightly. 


142 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


have  the  peculiarity  of  the  use  of  the  same  motive  for  the  lower 
and  side  borders,  a palmette  chain  similar  to  that  on  E III  B,  but 
carelessly  done,  since  we  sometimes  have  five,  sometimes  seven 
leaves.  The  key  pattern  and  zig-zag  chain  are  like  those  of  E V 
and  the  tongue  pattern  like  that  on  E IV.  The  Torlonia  hydria 
uses  a similar  meander  to  that  of  E V. 

The  outlines  of  the  body  show  through  the  drapery.  Helmets 
and  spear  project  into  the  upper  border.  To  detect  any  particu- 
lar individuality  in  the  treatment  of  the  horses  is  extremely 
difficult  considering  the  fact  that  all  horses  during  this  period  of 
the  r.f.  style  are  represented  in  a most  conventional  fashion. 
These  horses  of  Hypsis  differ,  however,  from  those  of  (Ones)imos, 
for  example  (who  seems  to  have  been  the  most  notable  horse- 
painter  at  this  time)  in  not  having  a perfectly  straight  head  and 
in  the  little  bulge  over  the  eye.  Like  all  Greek  horses  in  the  art 
of  this  time,  they  are  badly  proportioned,  but  their  careful  draw- 
ing shows  that  the  artist  was  fond  of  the  animal  and  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  result  is  fairly  good.  The  chariot  is  of  the  usual 
shape. 

Attributed  Vases 

H I.  [PI.  XXXVII]:  Amphora,  British  Museum  E 253.  From 
Vulci:  h.  m.  0.638.  Old  number  790.  Belongs  to  the  same 
class  as  the  three  amphorae  254-256  already  assigned  to 
Euthymides  and  has  the  same  shape,  handles,  and  external 
decoration.  The  description  is  here  taken  in  part  from  the 
British  Museum  Cat.  vol.  iii. 

Amati,  Osservaz,  p.  22. 

Campanari,  Att.  d.  Pont.  Accad.  Rom.  vii,  p.  88. 

Gerhard,  Rapp.  Vole.  no.  716. 

Creuzer,  Ein  Alt.  Athen.  Gefdss,  p.  15. 

Raoul-Rochette,  Lettre  d M.  Schorn,  p.  9. 

Brunn,  K.G.  ii,  p.  790. 

Wieseler,  in  Gott.  Gel.  Anz.  1871,  p.  985. 

Heydemann,  Satyr  u.  Bakchennam.,  pp.  27,  35. 

Corey,  Amaz.  Ant.  Fig.,  p.  91. 

Klein,  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1881,  p.  81. 

Hartwig,  p.  168. 

C.I.G.  8227. 

Charlotte  Frankl,  Satyr  u.  Bakchennam.  auf  V asenhildern,  Halle, 
1912,  p.  34,  pi.  ii  (for  obverse). 


Plate  XXXVII 


British  Museum  E 253  (H  i) 


? 


* 


HYPSIS 


143 


A.  Dionysos,  Silen  and  Maenad.  In  the  center  Dionysos, 
with  long  wedge-shaped  beard,  long  hair  wreathed  with  ivy; 
long-sleeved  chiton  and  mantle  over  his  shoulders  decorated 
with  dotted  crosses,  and  a border  round  the  neck  of  the  billet 
pattern,  moves  to  r.  holding  a kantharos  in  his  r.  and  a long, 
branching  vine  with  grapes,  spreading  over  the  design,  in  his 
1.  over  his  shoulder;  before  him  his  name  AI0NV:^0[^].  He 
is  followed  by  a silen  inscribed  BPIA  + 0^  (retr.)  who  with 
open  mouth  raises  his  1.  hand  to  pluck  a grape  from  a bunch 
which  he  draws  towards  him  with  the  palm  of  this  hand.  On 
the  r.  a maenad,  inscribed  with  the  name  EP04>VVVI^  (the  two 
final  letters  were  formerly  buried  under  plaster  restoration) 
dances  towards  Dionysos,  holding  forward  in  her  r.  a snake 
which  darts  its  tongue  vertically  upwards:  in  her  1.  she  holds 
butt  upwards  a thyrsos:  she  has  long  hair,  earrings,  and  a long 
chiton  with  studded  sleeves,  girt  at  the  waist  with  a kolpos  falling 
in  front:  both  she  and  the  silen  wear  ivy  wreaths. 

B.  Warrior  and  Amazon.  A youthful  warrior  with  Corinthian 
helmet  tilted  back,  cloak,  short  chiton  and  greaves,  with  spear 
and  shield  (device,  a lion  couchant,  with  tongue  protruding, 
to  1.  in  silhouette,  with  mane  indicated  by  purple  strokes,  and 
eye  incised  on  a black  line),  moves  to  1.  holding  with  his  r.  by 
the  rein,  his  horse,  which  chafes  at  the  bit,  turning  its  head  en 
face:  above  him,  his  name  HirrAI  + MO^.  On  the  1.  an  Amazon 
stands  to  r.  holding  in  her  1.  a bow,  in  her  r.  a battle-axe(?) 
butt  foremost  (the  head  of  the  axe  is  wanting):  she  wears  a 
kidaris  wreathed,  and  a dress  of  unusual  form,  the  upper  part 
being  like  the  jerkin  of  the  Scythian  dress  with  long  tight-fitting 
sleeves  edged  with  dots,  the  Jower  part  and  left  edge  like  the 
ordinary  chiton  girt  at  the  waist:  it  is  made  of  skin  indicated 
by  the  eyemarks  spread  over  it.  She  has  greaves  and  a large 
quiver  and  bow-case  hanging  at  her  side  by  a crossbelt.  Beside 
her,  her  name  ^EPAAVE. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  outline  of  the  beard  of  Dionysos  to 
separate  it  from  the  cheek  and  chin,  vine,  ivy,  inscriptions,  bow, 
spear,  and  mane  of  lion.  The  grapes  and  the  hair  over  the  fore- 
head of  the  figures  on  A are  indicated  in  raised  black  dots:  their 


144 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


hair,  stalks  and  outline  of  grapes,  tongue  of  serpent,  eye  of  lion, 
and  bowstring  are  incised.  Faint  lines  are  used  for  the  details  of 
the  drapery,  nostril,  hair  on  cheek,  and  moustache  of  Hippaech- 
mos  and  the  crest  of  the  horse.  Finger-nails  of  Dionysos  and 
Hippaechmos  indicated  by  dots. 

Borders.  Obverse.  Lower,  A 4 (c):  sides,  A 9:  upper,  B 1 (b). 
The  same  on  the  reverse  except  that  the  lower  is  A 3 {b). 

This  amphora  is  described  in  the  British  Museum  Catalogue 
as  “ style  of  Phintias”.  At  first  sight  there  seems  to  be  a slight 
resemblance  between  the  obverse  and  the  Corneto  amphora  and  a 
slight  difference  in  style  between  the  two  sides,  the  reverse  being 
a little  broader  in  treatment  and  less  stilted  in  composition  than 
the  obverse.  But  the  similarity  to  the  Corneto  amphora  is  due 
more  to  the  general  characteristics  of  the  period  since  none  of  the 
details  such  as  “Buckellockchen”,  heavy  eyebrows,  finger-nails, 
etc.  are  the  exclusive  property  of  Phintias;  and  that  the  two  sides 
are  from  the  same  hand  is  made  certain  by  the  fact  that  the  heads 
of  Hippaechmos  and  the  maenad  are  practically  duplicates  of 
each  other  and  the  same  peculiarities  of  detail  are  to  be  found  on 
both  sides. 

As  in  the  Munich  hydria,  so  here  we  have  an  Amazon  to  whom 
a name  is  attached.  Barring  its  Scythian  characteristics,  her 
dress  is  virtually  the  same  as  those  of  the  Amazons  on  H I.  The 
heads  are  in  the  same  proportion,  1:7.  The  pupil  of  the  eye  is  in 
the  center.  The  noses  are  more  pointed  than  those  of  Phintias 
and  are  like  those  on  the  Munich  hydria.  The  ears,  with  their 
peculiar  double  lobe,  are  identically  the  same  as  Hypsis  is  in  the 
habit  of  using.  The  breast  of  the  maenad  and  of  Hyphopyle  on 
H I are  identically  the  same  in  shape.  The  elbows  are  sharp,  the 
thighs  are  heavy  in  proportion  to  the  lower  leg,  and  the  ankles, 
although  in  relief  lines,  are  exactly  similar  to  those  on  H I.  The 
feet,  however,  are  better  proportioned. 

It  is  in  the  drapery  that  we  get  the  unmistakable  touch  of 
Hypsis,  for  the  border  of  Hippaechmos’  chiton  (Fig.  33)  and  that 
of  the  Amazon  are  virtually  duplicates  of  the  borders  of  the 
chitons  on  H I with  identically  the  same  peculiar  rounded  out- 
line. The  knees  have  the  same  projection  under  the  greaves. 


HYPSIS 


145 


The  horse,  too,  although  ambitiously  foreshortened,  is  similar 
to  the  horses  on  the  hydria.  We  have  the 
same  sharp  break  at  the  top  of  the  mane  and 
the  same  wrinkles  under  the  elbow  and  the 
same  tail. 

Considering  such  an  array  of  extraordi- 
nary similarities  to  the  details  we  have 
already  found  in  the  signed  work  of  Hypsis 
we  are  certainly  justified  in  regarding  this 
amphora  as  a direct  work  of  his  own  hand.^ 
The  name  Briachos  for  a silen  occurs  on 
a r.f . oinochoe  in  Cambridge  {Cal.  Fitzwilliam 
Mus.,  p.  66,  pi.  32;  also  4i.  Z.  1846,  p.  207).  Erophyllis,  Seragye, 
and  Hippaechmos  do  not  occur  elsewhere  to  my  knowledge. 

^ Beazley  gives  the  vase  to  his  Ambrosios  painter.  After  examining  the  various 
vases  he  attributes  to  this  master  I am  unable  to  detect  in  the  case  of  this  vase  any- 
thing more  than  a superficial  resemblance. 


Fig. 33 


CHAPTER  VII 


KLEOPHRADES 

Of  all  the  masters  who  belong  to  the  period  immediately  prior  to 
Euphronios  not  one  possesses  a more  individual  style  than  Kleo- 
phrades  ^ and  yet  hardly  one  is  represented  by  less  material  on 
which  to  form  an  estimate.  His  signature  is  preserved  on  only 
two  vases.  One,  a kylix  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  in  Paris 
(No.  535),  bears  around  its  foot  the  inscription  K\eo(f)pades 

eirolrjaev:  ''kiiaa s while  the  other,  a kylix  in  Berlin  (No. 

2283)2  has  the  joint  signatures  of  Douris  as  painter  and  Kleo- 
phrades  as  potter.  Hartwig,  restoring  the  inscription  on  the 
Paris  kylix  to  Apaats  eypacj)aev  has  thus  created  the  painter 
Amasis  II,  but  his  arguments  have  not  been  generally  accepted 
and  it  is  now  believed  that  the  inscription  should  be  restored  to 
read  either  ''Apaais  koXos  or  better,  as  suggested  by  Six  {Rom. 
Mitt.  1888,  p.  233)  ’Apaaios  viis.  The  latter  reading  forms  the 
basis  of  Beazley’s  admirable  and  comprehensive  article  on  Kleo- 
phrades  {J.H.S.  1910,  pp.  38-68). 

Since  the  style  of  the  Paris  kylix  differs  radically  from  the  one 
in  Berlin  it  is  certain  that  two  different  painters  (one  the  artist 
Douris)  were  at  work  under  the  potter  Kleophrades  who  is,  by 
his  signatures,  the  owner  of  an  atelier.  Who  the  painter  of  the 
Paris  kylix  was,  is  immaterial,  since  as  Hartwig  remarks,  even  if 
the  name  is  uncertain  the  master’s  individuality  is  not  in  the  least 
affected.  But  Hartwig’s  suggestion  that  his  restoration  of  ^Apa- 
ats  eypacf)(7ep  is  to  be  recommended  because  that  name  is  borne 
by  an  artist  of  the  b.f.  period  is  unfortunate  and  defeats  its  own 
purpose.  Considering  how  professions  in  Athens  were  handed 
down  in  the  same  family  it  would  be  singular  if  both  the  painters 

^ In  order  to  avoid  useless  repetition  and  circumlocution,  I beg  that  it  may  be 
clearly  understood  that  whenever  the  name  Kleophrades  occurs  in  the  course  of  this 
chapter  it  refers  to  the  nameless  artist  who  painted  the  kylix  in  the  Cabinet  des 
Medailles  which  bears  the  signature  of  Kleophrades  as  the  proprietor  of  the  atelier. 

2 Berlin  No.  2284  is  a duplicate  of  this  and  though  without  a signature  is  un- 
mistakably by  the  same  hand. 


146 


KLEOPHRADES 


147 


named  (assuming  for  the  moment  the  existence  of  Amasis  II) 
were  not  related.  But  as  by  Athenian  practice  a child  was  usually 
named  for  his  grandfather  and  not  his  father,  the  two  Amasis 
would  not  have  been  father  and  son,  but  rather  grandfather  and 
grandson,  and  this  relation  is  forbidden  by  the  chronology  since 
Kleophrades  could  only  have  had  a father  and  not  a grandfather 
among  the  artists  of  the  b.f.  period  if  the  first  Amasis  is  the  one  in 
question.  It  is  of  course  possible  that  the  first  Amasis  may  have 
had  a second  son  named  after  him.  On  the  whole,  however,  the 
probabilities  are  in  favor  of  Kleophrades  as  the  son  of  Amasis. 

Whoever  he  was,  his  earlier  work,  as  shown  by  vases  which  on 
the  basis  of  the  Paris  kylix  may  safely  be  attributed  to  him,  is  so 
extraordinarily  like  that  of  Euthymides  that  it  is  now  generally 
believed  he  was  actually  a workman  in  the  atelier  of  that  artist, 
and  acquired  many  of  Euthymides’  tricks  of  style;  so  thoroughly, 
in  fact,  that  Hauser  believes  a number  of  vases  attributed  to 
Euthymides  are  by  Kleophrades  and  that  to  all  practical  pur- 
poses he  is  Euthymides ; that  either  singly  or  in  combination  the 
Euthymides- Kleophrades  workshop  continued  to  turn  out  vases 
well  through  the  lifetime  of  the  Severe  Style,  and  that  a long 
progression  of  this  work  is  to  be  traced  as  far  as  the  Vivenzio 
kalpis  in  Naples.  Beazley,  however,  recognizes  that  there  is  a 
break  between  what  we  can  safely  call  the  works  of  Euthymides 
and  the  Kleophradean  vases,  which  we  have  no  means  of  bridging 
and  which  is  best  explained  by  supposing  that  Kleophrades  was 
Euthymides’  pupil.”  Beazley’s  attitude  seems  to  me  the  only 
possible  one  and  although  I am  obliged  to  differ  with  him  in 
certain  attributions  I agree  with  him  in  the  main  most  heartily. 
In  spite  of  certain  points  in  common  the  fundamental  differences 
of  style  between  the  two  artists  are  to  my  mind  so  great  that  I 
find  it  impossible  to  consider  the  later  vases  by  Kleophrades  as 
connected  in  any  way  with  the  work  of  Euthymides. 

To  follow  the  development  of  the  style  of  Kleophrades  as 
Beazley  has  done  would  be  to  repeat  the  substance  of  his  article. 
I propose  therefore  to  confine  myself  entirely  to  the  discussion  of 
that  style  in  so  far  as  it  bears  on  Euthymides’  activity,  indicat- 
ing the  point  at  which,  in  my  opinion,  they  part  company. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


148 

K I.  [PL  XXXVIII  and  Fig.  34]:  Kylix,  Cabinet  des  Me- 
dailles,  Paris,  No.  535.  From  Corneto.  The  vase  is  in  a very 
fragmentary  condition,  only  part  of  the  central  picture,  upper 
part  of  the  exterior  of  the  obverse,  and  a small  fragment  of 
the  reverse  being  preserved. 

De  Ridder,  Cat.  pp.  401-402. 

Bull.  d.  Inst.  1829,  p.  198.  Jahn,  Ann.  d.  hist.  1864,  p.  242. 

Gerhard,  Rapp.  Vole.  703. 

Luynes,  Description,  pi.  44,  pp.  24-25  = Reinach  ii,  p.  265. 

Klein,  Meistersign.  p.  149.  LI.  p.  93,  i. 

Six,  Rom.  Mitt,  hi,  p.  233.  Kretschmer,  pp.  75  (note  2),  195. 

Hartwig,  pi.  37,  i,  2,  pp.  123,  400-406. 

Pauly-Wissowa,  5.  v.  Amasis,  pp.  1748-1749. 

Beazley,  J.H.S.  1910,  p.  43,  No.  7. 

Interior.  Youthful  warrior  stooping  to  r.,  clad  in  a Corinthian 
helmet  (three  rows  of  dots  bordering  headpiece),  short  chiton, 
cuirass  and  greaves.  He  seems  to  be  in  the  act  of  adjusting  his 
greaves  and  plants  his  foot  on  a shield.  At  his  back  two  lines, 
representing  the  straps  of  his  unfastened  cuirass.  Whiskers  on 
his  cheek.  In  the  field  a sword  in  its  scabbard  with  purple  strap 
and  shield  seen  in  profile.  Border,  a simple  meander. 

Exterior.  Herakles  and  Amazons.  Almost  the  entire  lower 
part  of  the  figures  is  missing.  In  center,  Herakles  to  r.  wearing 
the  lion’s  skin  as  a helmet  and  cloak  over  a short  chiton,  with 
sword-belt  and  purple  cord,  holding  a sword  in  his  r.  which  he  is 
about  to  plunge  into  the  body  of  an  Amazon  who  totters  forward 
to  1.  Only  her  head  and  shield  preserved.  She  wears  an  Attic 
helmet  (headpiece  black  with  two  white  dots)  with  uplifted  vizor, 
and  ringlets.  On  her  shield,  seen  in  profile,  a bull’s  head,  in  sil- 
houette. To  r.  of  Herakles’  head  Hr[RA] KVEE[^].  Attacking 
Herakles  an  Amazon  to  1.,  with  ringlets,  clad  in  a long  panther- 
skin  cloak  and  short  chiton.  She  wears  an  Attic  helmet  with  the 
vizor  up,  and  greaves,  carries  a spear  in  her  r.  and  in  her  1.  a shield 
(device,  centaur  to  1.  holding  a branch,  in  silhouette).  Behind 
her  a beardless  figure  (Amazon  ?)  to  1.,  wearing  a kidaris  or  alope- 
kis,  short  chiton,  greaves  and  a cuirass  (with  a border  under  the 
arms)  a quiver  with  four  arrows  suspended  over  her  1.  side  by  a 
purple  strap.  She  discharges  an  arrow  with  her  r.  from  the  bow 


Plate  XXXVIII 


Cabinet  des  Medailles  535  (K  I) 


KLEOPHRADES 


149 


which  she  holds  in  her  1.  Behind  Herakles  another  Amazon  to  r., 
wearing  a Corinthian  helmet,  short  chiton,  cuirass  and  greaves, 
a sword  in  her  r.  and  a shield  seen  from  the  inside  in  her  1.  hand. 


Fig.  34 


Her  hair  is  long  and  indicated  by  thin  brown  strokes  and 
over  her  forehead  is  a band  in  purple.  Beside  her  head 
+ ^AN0irr[E].  She  tries  to  defend  herself  from  the  attack  of 
a bearded  warrior  wearing  a Corinthian  helmet,  cuirass  with 
two  borders,  short  chiton  and  greaves,  sword-strap  in  purple. 


ISO 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


holding  his  shield  seen  from  the  interior  in  his  1.  while  with  his 
r.  he  plunges  his  sword  into  her  body.  Before  him  KAVO[^] 
(retr.).  In  field  OM  VP.  (For  a facsimile  of  the  signature  see 
PL  XXXVIII.) 

The  three  feet  and  the  shield  in  the  upper  r.  h.  part  of  Hartwig’s 
drawing  belong  to  the  warrior  and  Xanthippe,  and  the  shield  is 
that  of  the  fallen  Amazon,  falsely  restored  in  the  Luynes  drawing 
since  she  is  evidently  supporting  herself  by  it.  The  handle  came 
just  above  the  warrior  and  the  other  three  feet  and  spear  belong 
to  figures  on  the  reverse.  Evidently  the  entire  subject  was 
treated  as  a frieze  with  no  separation  by  palmettos  under  the 
handles,  as  one  of  the  figures  on  the  reverse  is  striding  towards 
the  obverse. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  fillets,  sword-straps,  and  cord 
of  bow.  Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines.  Hair  of  the  l.h. 
Amazon  and  whiskers  of  the  youth  on  the  interior  in  light  brown, 
as  well  as  the  streaks  on  the  kidaris  and  lion  and  panther  skins. 
Incised  lines  on  the  dark  stripe  in  the  center  of  the  panther  skin. 
According  to  Beazley  (loc.  cit.  p.  44)  a brown  line  which  marks  the 
upper  eyelid  of  the  warrior  on  the  interior  has  been  omitted. 

The  Style  of  Kleophrades 

It  is  obvious  that  any  conclusions  as  to  the  various  stylistic 
details  which  characterize  the  work  of  Kleophrades  must  be 
based  on  the  Paris  kylix  alone  since  as  previously  remarked,  the 
two  kylixes  in  Berlin  are  the  work  of  a different  hand.  As  we 
shall  see,  the  vase  represents  a fairly  advanced  period  of  the  r.f. 
style  and  cannot  be  regarded  as  one  of  his  early  works. 

First  and  foremost,  his  figures  are  conceived  on  a far  broader 
and  more  vigorous  scale  than  any  by  either  Phintias  or  Euthy- 
mides,  and  the  proportion  of  the  heads  is  always  i : 6J  or  even 
more.^  Not  only  is  this  true  of  the  signed  vase  but  all  the  vases, 
with  a few  exceptions,  which  Beazley  and  Hartwig  attribute  to 
him  show  this  same  proportion.  This  constitutes,  as  previously 
pointed  out,  the  fundamental  difference  between  Kleophrades  and 

^ Although  the  lower  part  of  the  figures  of  the  Paris  kylix  are  missing  the  dimen- 
sions of  the  vase  make  this  proportion  certain. 


KLEOPHRADES 


151 

Euthymides  and  is,  to  my  mind,  an  insuperable  barrier  to  the 
attribution  to  him  of  any  vase  in  which  the  proportion  stands  1:7. 

As  the  following  table  of  details  is  based  on  the  evidence  of  only 
one  vase  naturally  no  claim  is  made  that  all  details  were  invari* 
ably  treated  by  him  in  a certain  fashion.  We  shall  find,  however, 
that  the  principal  characteristics  remain  a constant  quantity  and 
are  repeated  in  all  the  works  assigned  to  him,  though  occasional 
departures  from  minor  details  as  shown  by  the  Paris  vase,  are  to 
be  seen. 

1 . Hair.  Either  treated  as  a solid  mass  (ringlets  in  the  case  of 
female  figures)  without  an  incised  contour,  or  else  indicated  by 
thin  strokes  of  brown. 

2.  Eyebrows.  The  eyebrows  are  treated  as  in  Euthymides’ 
work. 

3.  Eyes.  The  eyes  are  either  a black  dot  or  dot  in  circle  and 
set  closer  to  the  inner  corner  than  in  Euthymides’  figures. 

4.  Nose.  The  nose  is  bolder,  larger  and  more  decided  than  in 
Euthymides’  work,  and  decidedly  aquiline.  The  nostrils  are 
more  naturally  drawn  and  sharply  defined  by  relief  lines.  There 
is  no  separation  of  the  cheeks. 

5.  Mouth.  The  mouth  is  very  characteristic.  The  lips  are  full 
and  both  upper  and  lower  are  strongly  marked  by  relief  hnes. 

6.  Chins.  The  chins  are  rather  fuller  than  those  of  Euthy- 
mides and  give  the  figures  rather  a prognathous  appearance. 

7.  Ears.  The  ears  are  also  characteristic.  They  are  large, 
and  set  too  high  at  an  angle  with  a very  pronounced  projecting 
lobe. 

8.  Beard.  The  only  beard  preserved  is  that  of  the  warrior 
which  is  partly  hidden  by  his  arm.  It  probably  resembled  those 
of  Euthymides.  The  whiskers  are  very  prominent,  painted  in  a 
brown  wash  and  are  even  more  developed  than  those  used  by 
Phintias. 

9.  Necks.  The  necks  are  more  solid  and  massive  than  those 
drawn  by  Euthymides. 

10.  Torso.  As  all  figures  wear  a chiton  and  cuirass  few  con- 
clusions as  to  the  anatomical  details  are  possible.  These  we  shall 
be  able  to  reconstruct  from  the  attributed  vases. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


152 

11.  Arms.  The  arms  are  heavy  and  rather  too  long.  There  is 
no  trace  of  finger-nails  on  the  fingers  which  have  (judging  from 
the  unsigned  vases)  the  Euthymidean  tendency  to  curl  at  the 
ends. 

12.  Legs.  The  frontal  knee  somewhat  resembles  those  in 
Euthymides’  figures  but  is  rounder  and  less  elongated. 

13.  Eeet.  The  ankles  are  denoted  by  a single  relief  line. 
Otherwise  the  feet  show  no  difference  from  what  has  been  seen  in 
the  figures  of  Euthymides. 

14.  Drapery.  The  only  examples  of  drapery  are  the  borders 
of  the  chitons  under  the  cuirass  and  these  show  no  departure 
from  the  treatment  characteristic  of  the  period. 

15.  Wreaths.  Only  one  plain  band  in  applied  purple  paint  is 
used. 

16.  Borders.  Only  one  border  is  preserved,  a simple  meander 
around  the  interior. 

As  the  only  names  on  the  kylix  are  those  of  two  of  the  figures, 
Herakles  and  Xanthippe,  we  can  draw  no  conclusions  as  to  Kleo- 
phrades’  use  of  names.  A study  of  the  unsigned  vases  shows 
that  he  seldom  used  names:  koXos  is  generally  found  in  the 
formula  koXos  el. 

Erom  the  above  table  it  will  be  seen  that  the  stylistic  details 
which  mark  Kleophrades’  work  are  narrowed  down  to  his  treat- 
ment of  hair,  eyes,  ears,  mouths,  and  the  general  proportions  of 
his  figures.  All  these,  however,  are  distinctly  sui  generis  and  form 
a perfectly  safe  criterion  for  the  attribution  of  unsigned  work. 
Since  all  the  vases  attributed  to  him  display  these  features  we  are 
justified  in  drawing  conclusions  from  them  as  to  the  progress  in 
his  art  even  if  they  are  not  found  on  the  signed  kylix. 

Attributed  Vases 

Hartwig,  in  his  chapter  on  ‘‘  Amasis  ” in  the  Meisterschalen, 
attributes  eight  vases  to  that  master.  Beazley  in  his  article 
already  cited  adopts  all  of  Hartwig’s  attributions  and  adds 
thirty-three  more  vases  and  fragments.  In  a subsequent  note 
{J.H.S.  1911,  p.  280,  note  10)  he  adds  two  more,  a kalpis  in  the 
collection  of  August  Castellani  in  Rome  (boy  and  youth  with 


KLEOPHRADES 


153 


hare)  and  a lekythos  in  the  Glyptothek  in  Munich  (Herakles  with 
the  Tripod).  Since  then,  as  he  has  informed  me  in  a letter,  he  has 
increased  his  list  of  attributions  by  the  following: 

Pelike.  Copenhagen.  A,  two  athletes;  B,  woman  and  boy. 
Inscription  KAVO:^. 

Kalyx-krater  in  the  collection  of  Baron  Giudice,  Girgenti. 
A,  Briseis;  Inscription  KAVEV.  (Only  a little  of  the  vase  is  old.) 

Neck  amphora,  twisted  handles.  New  York,  13.233.  Bull. 
Metr.  Mus.  ix,  p.  233.  A,  Herakles  with  Tripod;  B,  Apollo. 

Amphora  of  Panathenaic  shape.  New  York,  07.286.79. 
A,  Athena.  B,  chariot  race. 

Neck  amphora,  twisted  handles.  Petrograd  613  (Stephani 
1456).  A,  discobolus;  B,  trainer. 

Neck  amphora,  triple  handles.  Petrograd  609.  A,  two 
akontists;  B,  two  silens. 

Stamnos.  Memorial  Hall,  Philadelphia,  Miss  Hall,  Bull.  Penn. 
Mus.  1906,  p.  55.  A,  Herakles  and  the  Lion;  B,  Theseus  and 
Marathonian  Bull.  Inscription  on  each  side  KAVO^^EI. 

Kalpis.  Rouen  No.  23  (Durand  Coll.)  Silens  and  sleeping 
maenad.  Inscription  KAVO^. 

The  total,  therefore,  of  the  vases  attributed  to  Kleophrades 
amounts  to  fifty-one. ^ I have  not  attempted  to  give  the  complete 
list  of  these  attributions  for  two  reasons:  first  because  it  would 
be  a useless  waste  of  time  and  space  since  Beazley’s  article  is 
easily  accessible,  and  secondly  because  the  bulk  of  these  attribu- 
tions belong  to  the  later  period  of  Kleophrades’  activity  and  have 
no  connection  whatsoever  with  the  work  of  Euthymides.  Al- 
though the  influence  of  Euthymides  may  be  detected  in  many  of 
them,  in  only  six  cases  can  there  be  any  possibility,  in  my  opinion, 
of  confusing  them  with  vases  from  Euthymides’  workshop.  I 
propose  to  consider  therefore  in  detail,  only  numbers  i,  3,  4 (re- 
verse), 5,  8,  and  10  of  Beazley’s  list. 

^ The  latest  number  of  the  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies  (1916,  Part  II)  con- 
tains some  additional  attributions  by  Beazley  which  have  arrived  too  late  for  in- 
sertion here;  they  will  be  found  in  the  addenda  on  p.  174. 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


IS4 

K I.  [Pis.  XXXIX  and  XL]:  Amphora  in  Vatican,  496  (93). 
From  Vulci:  h.  m.  0.64.  The  amphora  is  of  the  usual  shape 
and  decoration,  with  A 13  on  base,  A 12  under  the  handles 
(b.f.)  and  An  on  the  handles.  Purple  stripes  on  neck  and 
base. 

Hart  wig,  p.  412. 

Mus.  Greg,  ii,  pi.  54,  2 a. 

Helbig-Reisch,  FUhrer,  i,  p.  310. 

Beazley,!  J.H.S.  1910,  p.  39,  No.  i,  pi.  iv. 

A.  Herakles  and  Athena.  In  center  Herakles  to  r.  clad  in  a 
short  chiton  and  lion  skin  which  covers  his  head.  His  beard  is 
heavily  marked  in  dark  brown  with  still  darker  dots.  He  wears  a 
girdle  round  his  waist  and  a quiver  at  his  1.  side.  He  holds  his  club 
in  his  1.  over  his  shoulder  while  with  his  r.  he  grasps  the  r.  of 
Athena  who  faces  him.  She  is  clad  in  a long  chiton  and  aegis 
(fringed  with  snakes)  and  wears  an  Attic  helmet  on  her  head  with 
a tall  crest  which  projects  into  the  upper  border  (cheek-piece  in 
the  form  of  a ram’s  head).  In  her  1.  is  her  spear  which  rests 
against  her  shoulder.  Between  them  + A I PE.  Behind  Herakles 
to  r.  lolaos,  clad  in  a short  chiton,  cuirass  and  greaves,  with  long 
hair  tied  at  the  back  by  a purple  cord,  whiskers  on  his  cheek 
(these  are  heavily  marked  in  dark  brown  with  still  darker  dots  in 
them),  holding  a Corinthian  helmet  in  his  r.  (the  skull-piece 
black)  and  his  spear,  the  point  of  which  projects  into  the  upper 
border,  in  his  1. 

B.  In  center  a bearded  kitharist  and  two  epheboi,  one  with 
krotala  and  knobbed  staff,  the  other  with  a staff. 

Borders.  All  b.f.  Below,  A 4 (a) : sides,  above  A 5.  Purple  is 
used  for  the  inscription,  wreath  and  cord  in  lolaos’  hair.  Anatom- 
ical details  in  faint  lines.  Contour  of  hair  incised. 

Beazley  assigns  this  vase  to  Kleophrades  as  his  earliest  work. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  attribution  is  correct  since  the 
proportion  of  the  figures  (i:6J),  profiles,  eyes,  mouths,  ears 
(although  the  ears  are  not  all  alike  the  characteristic  protruding 
lobe  is  to  be  found  on  the  bearded  kitharist  on  the  reverse),  noses 

^ Beazley’s  plate  of  the  vase  gives  the  obverse  only  and  is  very  poor.  I have 
therefore  had  the  vase  photographed  again,  and  am  able  in  Plates  XXXIX  and 
XL  to  give  both  sides  in  a more  satisfactory  way. 


Vatican  496  (K  i)  obverse 


Plate  XXXIX 


Plate  XL 


Vatican  496  (K  i)  reverse 


Plate  XLI 


Munich  2305  (K  2) 


IP 


r» 


KLEOPHRADES 


ISS 


with  their  nostrils  in  black  rounded  full  lines,  chins,  whiskers  (the 
addition  of  the  darker  dots  is  very  characteristic  of  Kleophrades) , 
long,  thin  fingers,  and  ankles  marked  by  a single  relief  line  are  all 
unmistakably  his.  The  heads  of  lolaos  and  Herakles  are  re- 
markably like  the  heads  of  Herakles  and  the  youth  on  the  Paris 
kylix.  The  lower  lip  of  Athena  is  edged  with  a brown  line  and  her 
cheek  indicated.  The  ram’s  head  on  the  cheek-piece  of  her  helmet 
is  paralleled  by  a similar  figure  on  the  helmet  of  a b.f.  amphora  in 
Boston  (Oesterr.  Jahreshejte  1907  (x)  pi.  i),  signed,  curiously 
enough,  by  Amasis.  The  pattern  of  the  crest-holder  is  like  that 
on  the  Paris  kylix.  At  first  sight  the  loops  over  the  quiver  look 
like  tripod  handles  but  a comparison  with  the  Paris  kylix  shows 
that  it  is  the  tail  of  the  lion  skin.  The  same  detail  is  to  be  ob- 
served on  the  Louvre  kalpis  G 50  which  Beazley  also  attributes 
to  Kleophrades.  As  this  double  loop  is  not  a usual  feature  of  the 
lion  skin  and  occurs  on  a signed  vase  it  constitutes  an  additional 
bit  of  evidence  in  the  attribution  of  the  amphora  under  discussion, 
which  has  been  overlooked  by  both  Beazley  and  Hartwig.  The 
black  skull-piece  of  the  helmet  is  like  that  on  the  Paris  kylix. 

K 2.  [PL  XLI  and  Fig.  35] : Amphoea.  Munich,  No.  2305 
(Jahn  411):  h.  m.  0.653  (without  cover).  From  Vulci. 

JMon.  delV  Inst,  i,  pi.  26,  3.  = Reinach  i,  p.  73. 

F.R.  i,  pp.  262-267,  pi.  52:  ii,  p.  223. 

Hartwig,  pp.  409,  410,  pi.  37,  4a  6"  b. 

Hoppin,  Euthymides,  p.  32. 

Juthner,  Ant.  Turnger.,  p.  69,  fig.  55  (reverse). 

Beazley,  J.H.S.  1910,  p.  42,  No.  5. 

Per.  et  Chip,  x,  p.  357,  fig.  203. 

A . Warrior’s  Departure.  In  the  center  a youthful  warrior  to  1. 
clad  in  a short  chiton  and  cuirass  with  a sword  suspended  from 
a sash  on  his  1.  side,  wearing  greaves  and  a Corinthian  helmet. 
Star  on  shoulder  strap  of  cuirass.  Pattern  on  greaves  like  that  on 
the  obverse  of  E I.  Hilt  of  sword  in  black  silhouette  and  orna- 
mented with  a lozenge  pattern.  Faint  whiskers  on  his  cheek  like 
the  warrior  on  E 4.  In  his  1.  he  grasps  his  spear  and  holds  out  a 
phiale  in  his  r.  to  receive  the  libation  which  a woman  who  faces 
him  is  about  to  pour  into  it  from  a jug  she  holds  in  her  r.  She 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


156 

is  clad  in  a long  Ionic  chiton  and  cloak,  wears  a stephane  in  her 
hair  and  holds  the  edge  of  her  mantle  with  her  1.  hand  between 
thumb  and  forefinger.  Above  the  warrior’s  arm  KAVO^  (retro- 
grade) ; partially  concealed  by  his  legs  a hound  smelling  his  mis- 
tress’s foot.  Behind  the  warrior  to  r.  a bearded  man  clad  in  a 
short-sleeved  chiton  and  himation  (the  chiton  is  ornamented  with 
dots)  the  fold  of  which  is  flung  across  his  1.  arm  and  conceals  his 
thumb.  In  his  r.  he  holds  a knobbed  staff.  The  helmet  and 
spear  project  into  the  upper  border  and  the  lines  of  the  woman’s 
cloak  run  through  the  jug  which  is  in  silhouette. 

B.  Athletes  Exercising.  In  the  center  the  instructor,  bearded, 
with  a laurel  wreath  in  his  hair,  clad  in  a long  cloak  thrown 
over  his  1.  shoulder  and  his  1.  forearm,  leaving  his  r.  shoulder 
bare,  holds  in  his  1.  a forked  stick  and  stretches  out  his  r. 
towards  a youth,  nude,  who  turns  his  back  and  holds  in  his 
hands  a cestus.  Above  his  1.  arm  KA[V]0^.  To  the  r.  of  the 
instructor  another  nude  youth  to  r.  in  the  act  of  adjusting  a 
cestus  on  his  1.  hand.  Both  have  faint  whiskers  on  their  cheeks 
and  a victor’s  crown  in  their  hair. 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions,  wreaths,  sword-sash,  and 
cestus.  Anatomical  details  in  faint  lines  as  well  as  the  drapery. 
Whiskers  and  hair  and  beard  of  the  old  man  on  the  obverse  in  faint 
brown.  Lower  border  of  obverse  A 4 {a) : side  borders,  similar 
palmettes,  laid  on  their  side.  Top,  A 5 (a).  Borders  of  the  re- 
verse are  the  same  except  that  those  on  the  side  are  A 9. 

Around  the  rim  of  the  amphora  runs  a b.f.  frieze  representing 
on  one  side  six  horsemen  attacking  a deer  which  separates  them 
into  two  groups  of  three  each.  They  are  clad  in  stiff  short  cloaks 
(three  decorated  in  patterns  in  applied  white)  and  fox-skin  caps 
and  carry  spears  in  their  r.  On  the  other  side  a charioteer  in  the 
act  of  stepping  into  the  chariot  of  his  quadriga  and  on  either  side 
of  him  a man  on  horseback  holding  a spear,  and  a man  on  foot 
(Fig-  3S)- 

On  the  cover  a b.f.  frieze  of  four  quadrigae  with  their  chario- 
teers wearing  white  tunics  as  on  the  cover  of  E 4. 

Eurtwangler  considers  that  this  vase  though  more  advanced  in 
technique  is  still  in  the  Euthymidean  manner  and  might  have 


KLEOPHRADES 


IS7 

come  from  his  workshop.  Hauser  gives  it  absolutely  to  Euthy- 
mides  while  Hartwig  and  Beazley  assign  it  definitely  to  Kleo- 
phrades. 

It  is  hard  to  see  how  the  attribution  to  Kleophrades  can  be 
doubted.  The  proportions  of  the  figures  (i:6|),  the  hair,  eyes, 
unmistakable  ear,  the  nose  with  its  sharply  defined  nostrils,  thick 
lips  with  relief  lines,  heavy  whiskers,  hands  and  ankles  — all 


bespeak  their  author.  One  has  only  to  compare  the  head  of  the 
warrior  on  the  obverse  with  that  of  his  fellow  on  the  interior  of 
the  Paris  kylix  to  recognize  their  common  origin,  while  the  cuirass 
with  its  bands  and  the  scabbard  with  its  key  pattern  and  the  two 
crossed  cords  find  their  counterparts  there  as  well. 

A few  new  details  are  worthy  of  attention.  The  line  from 
pubes  to  navel  is  marked  in  black  relief.  While  this  does  occur  in 
Euthymides’  work  it  is  not  his  invariable  practice;  in  every  vase, 
however,  which  can  reasonably  be  attributed  to  Kleophrades 
this  holds  true.  The  toes  are  drawn  full  front  as  complete  circles 
and  not  in  the  oval  form  used  by  Euthymides  (E  I and  II) . 

Some  slight  differences  are  to  be  noted  in  the  two  sides  since 
the  drawing  on  the  reverse  is  hastier,  the  proportion  of  the  figures 
is  nearer  i:6j  than  i:6|  and  the  lips  are  not  marked  by  relief 
lines.  But  the  ears  with  their  projecting  lobe,  profiles,  hands,  and 
square  frontal  knee  make  it  fairly  certain  that  it  was  painted  by 
the  same  hand  as  the  obverse.  A certain  curious  discrepancy 
may  be  noted  in  the  drawing  of  the  hands  since  the  r.  hand  of  the 
central  figure  is  so  different  from  the  1.  hand  of  the  r.h.  figure  as  to 
cause  one  to  wonder  whether  by  any  possibility  two  different 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


IS8 

artists  ever  worked  on  the  same  figure  on  a vase,  as  we  know 
occasionally  happened  in  the  making  of  a statue.  This  might 
have  been  the  case,  but  since  we  see  the  same  failure  occurring  on 
a signed  vase  of  Euthymides  (E  II)  the  more  likely  supposition  is 
carelessness  on  the  part  of  the  painter. 

The  simple  formula  koXos  without  any  name  is  thoroughly 
characteristic  of  Kleophrades. 

In  spite  of  a certain  resemblance  I do  not  believe  that  the 
reverse  of  British  Museum  E 256  is  by  Kleophrades’  hand.  The 
only  similarity  there  lies  in  the  foreshortening  of  the  figures  and 
the  crescent-shaped  pubes,  since  the  proportions  of  the  figures, 
the  eyes,  collar  bones,  hands,  frontal  knee,  and  foreshortened 
ankle  are  all  radically  different.  Further,  we  have  koXos  used 
with  two  names  and  not  as  here,  alone. 

There  is  little  in  the  subject-matter  to  attract  our  attention. 
On  the  obverse  the  departure  scene  is  conceived  in  a similar  spirit 
to  that  on  the  Wurzburg  amphora  except  that  the  preparations 
for  a libation  are  indicated.  Obviously  the  father  and  mother  of 
the  youthful  warrior  are  here  represented.  The  dog  is  of  the  same 
breed  as  his  fellows  on  the  Wurzburg  and  British  Museum 
amphorae  but  here  no  attempt  at  foreshortening  has  been  made. 
A life-like  touch  has  been  introduced  in  the  way  he  lifts  his  paw 
and  sniffs  at  the  foot  of  his  mistress.  The  athletic  scene  on  the 
reverse  presents  nothing  new  or  unusual.  Practically  a duplicate 
of  the  frieze  is  found  on  a loutrophoros  in  the  Louvre  (Collignon, 
Mon.  Piot  I,  pp.  49-60,  pis.  5-7)  attributed  also  by  Beazley  to 
Kleophrades  (loc.  cit.  p.  67,  No.  35).  The  coats  have  the  same 
key  border  and  the  riders  wear  the  same  fox-skin  caps.  Curiously 
enough,  Beazley  fails  to  mention  this  bit  of  corroborative  evi- 
dence. 

K3.  [PI.  XII]:  Amphora  in  Wurzburg,  300.  Reverse.  For 

description  of  vase  v.  pp.  54-57  (E  4). 

The  obverse  of  this  amphora  was  discussed  at  length  in  chap. 
IV  and  assigned  to  Euthymides,  while  the  reverse  was  given  to 
Kleophrades.  Beazley  (loc.  cit.  p.  40)  asserts  that  ‘Tt  is  not 
necessary  to  assume  that  the  two  sides  of  the  Wurzburg  amphora 


KLEOPHRADES  1 59 

are  from  different  hands:  on  A the  artist  listlessly  copies  his 
Euthymidean  model;  on  B he  is  in  earnest.” 

It  seems  to  me  that  Beazley  has  been  too  much  influenced  by 
the  style  of  the  reverse  (which  is  most  emphatically  not  that  of 
Euthymides)  to  guage  that  of  the  obverse  fairly.  Even  granting, 
as  previously  remarked,  that  its  execution  is  slightly  inferior  to 
the  signed  vases,  the  technical  details  characteristic  of  the  work 
of  Euthymides  are  all  present  and  there  is  no  other  artist  of  whom 
this  holds  true.  On  the  other  hand  we  find  in  the  reverse  the 
fundamental  difference  in  the  proportions  of  the  figures,  i:6|, 
and  this  one  fact,  were  no  other  difference  to  be  noted,  would 
virtually  eliminate  Euthymides  as  the  painter  of  it.  In  addition 
we  find  the  following  Kleophradean  features.  The  pupils  of  the 
eyes  are  set  nearer  the  corners,  the  nostrils  are  more  clearly 
defined  and  the  lips  of  the  l.h.  figure  are  marked  by  a relief  line. 
The  whiskers  are  more  emphasized  than  on  the  obverse.  The  ear 
approaches  more  closely  the  Kleophradean  ear  than  the  Euthy- 
midean as  do  the  collar  bones. ^ We  have  a clear  definition  of  the 
thumb-nail  while  the  frontal  knee  is  of  the  square  form  used  by 
Kleophrades  and  not  elongated  as  in  Euthymides’  work.  The 
ankles  might  be  by  either  but  as  we  have  already  seen,  on  Euthy- 
mides’ vases  they  are  generally  drawn  in  faint  lines. 

In  view  of  these  differences,  most  of  them  fundamental,  it  is 
impossible  to  see  how  both  sides  of  the  amphora  can  possibly  be 
attributed  to  the  same  hand.^  Since,  however,  a few  details  like 

^ We  have,  to  be  sure,  no  indication  of  a collar  bone  on  the  Paris  kylix  but  the 
treatment  of  it  on  K 2 shows  the  difference  from  that  used  by  Euthymides  and 
exactly  parallels  that  used  here. 

2 To  supplement  the  discussion  on  p.  33  as  to  the  possibility  of  each  side  of  a vase 
having  been  painted  by  a different  hand,  the  pertinent  remarks  of  Hauser  (F.R.  ii, 
p.  223)  may  be  quoted  here.  “ Jedenfalls  muss  man  im  Auge  behalten,  dass  ein 
inschriftlich  beglaubigter  Fall,  in  welchem  zwei  verschiedene  Maler  am  selben 
Gefass  thatig  gewesen  waren,  bis  jetzt  nicht  vorliegt,  muss  sich  auch  daran  erinnern 
dass  ein  allzu  sorgfaltig,  zu  tiiftelig  ausgefiihrtes  Werk  archaischer  erscheint  als  ein 
leicht  heruntergemaltes,  selbst  wenn  beide  von  der  gleichen  Hand  stammen.  Und 
fiir  die  Identitat  des  Urhebers  von  Vorder-  und  Riickseite  auf  unserer  Amphora 
lassen  sich  doch  auch  einige  Beobachtungen  anfiihren.  An  den  mit  verdiinntem 
Firnis  grundierten  Barten  sind  die  Bartspitzen  vollig  gleich  mit  Relieflinien  auf- 
gesetzt;  auch  die  Zeichnung  der  Fiisse  ist  gleichartig  desgleichen  die  Ritzlinie  an 
den  Frauenhaaren.  Ich  neige  also  trotz  des  auffallenden  Unterschiedes  im  Stil 


i6o 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


the  mouths  are  not  drawn  with  both  upper  and  lower  lips  in  relief 
lines  and  the  ears  are  not  yet  given  their  projecting  lobe,  we  may 
conclude  that  the  reverse  belongs  to  Kleophrades’  earlier  manner 
when  he  was  still  a pupil  of  Euthymides  and  not  entirely  free 
from  that  master’s  influence. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  composition  that  is  especially  signifi- 
cant. It  may  be  noticed  that  the  breasts  of  the  female  figure  are 
still  drawn  incorrectly  but  this  is  a common  fault  of  the  period. 

K 4.  [PI.  XLII]:  Kalyx-Krater,  Corneto,  Mus.  Tarquiniense. 

Hart  wig,  Meistersch.  pp.  416-417,  figs.  56  a-c. 

Beazley,  J.H.S.  1910,  p.  45,  No.  10. 

The  vase  is  in  excellent  condition  without  any  restorations. 

A.  Athletic  Scene.  At  the  1.  a nude  discobolus  to  r.  holding 
a discus  in  both  hands.  He  has  whiskers  and  wears  an  olive 
wreath.  Facing  him  a youth  seen  from  behind  with  face  in  pro- 
file to  1.,  wearing  a similar  wreath,  black  whiskers  on  his  cheek,  and 
draped  in  a cloak  which  leaves  the  r.  arm  and  shoulder  bare.  In 
his  r.  a long  two-forked  stick.  Between  them  (retrograde)  KAVO^ 
El.  Behind,  a pickaxe. 

B.  The  same.  At  the  1.  a youth  clad  in  a long  mantle  similarly 
draped  to  that  of  his  fellow  on  the  obverse,  with  black  whiskers 
and  a flower  wreath  in  his  hair  holding  in  his  r.  a two-forked 
stick.  Facing  him  to  1.  a nude  akontist  wearing  a similar  wreath 
and  holding  a javelin  in  both  hands  preparatory  to  the  throw. 
Behind  him  a pickaxe.  Between  them  KAVO^. 

Borders.  Around  foot,  A 6;  on  obverse,  lower  A 8 (c),  upper 
B I (c) . A slight  variation  from  the  regular  form  exists  since  the 

beider  Seiten,  welcher  sich  nicht  abstreiten  lasst,  zur  Annahme  von  Einheit  der 
ausfiihrenden  Hand.  Wem  dies  nicht  glaublich  scheint,  der  muss  mindestens 
zugeben,  dass  die  Riickseite  von  einem  Schiller  des  Euthymides  ausgefiihrt  ist,  der 
sich  eine  Reihe  von  Eigenthiimlichkeiten  der  Zeichnung  seines  Lehrers  vollig  an- 
geeignet  hat,  trotzdem  aber  schon  auf  einer  weiter  fortgeschrittenen  Stufe  der 
Entwicklung  steht  als  der  Meister  selbst.  Die  Entscheidung  dieses  Dilemmas  hat 
aus  dem  Grund  eine  nicht  geringe  Bedeutung  fur  die  Geschichte  der  Vasenmalerei, 
weil  sich  an  die  Riickseite  unserer  Amphora  [the  one  under  discussion]  eine  Reihe 
ganz  hervorragender  Werke  ankettet,  welche  eventuel  also  alle  noch  Euthymides 
zuzuschreiben  waren,  und  danach  hatte  der  Sohn  des  Polias  eine  Stilentwicklung  an 
sich  erlebt,  welche  nicht  einmal  von  der  des  Euphronios  iiberboten  wiirde.” 

In  view  of  what  has  already  been  said  further  comment  seems  superfluous. 


Plate  XLII 


CORNETO  (K  4) 


Plate  XLIII 


Louvre  G 48  (K  5) 


KLEOPHRADES 


i6i 


palmettes  are  pointed  at  the  top  instead  of  being  rounded.  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  case  wherever  Kleophrades  employs  this 
motive.  Reverse,  lower  A 8 (a) ; upper,  A 4 (a). 

Purple  is  used  for  the  inscriptions  and  wreaths:  anatomical 
details  in  faint  brown  lines.  Hair  contour  reserved  except  in  the 
case  of  the  l.h.  youth  on  the  reverse  where  it  is  incised. 

The  Kleophradean  features  are  extremely  well  marked  here. 
The  ears  of  three  of  the  figures  are  less  characteristic  perhaps,  but 
in  the  case  of  the  discobolus  we  have  the  familiar  protruding  lobe. 
The  build  of  the  figures  and  their  proportion  (it  may  be  remarked 
that  the  figure  of  the  discobolus  is  1:7,  but  as  the  other  figures 
follow  the  usual  canon  of  Kleophrades  such  instances  must  be 
considered  as  exceptional),  the  eyes,  lips,  collar  bones  and  frontal 
knee  are  absolutely  his.  The  round  toes  of  the  discobolus  have 
nails  added  to  them  in  relief  lines,  a new  feature.  As  is  also  a 
peculiarity  of  the  artist,  we  have  no  names  but  the  simple  koXos 
and  KoXos  el. 

Although  the  two  groups  have  little  to  distinguish  them  in 
their  treatment  from  the  ordinary  athletic  scene  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  the  akontist  is  a duplicate  of  the  similar  figures  on  E 9,  P 4, 
and  P 7,  the  first  attributed  to  Euthymides  and  the  other  two  to 
Phintias.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  certain  types  are  repeated  with 
more  or  less  fidelity  by  all  the  artists  of  the  period  it  is  significant 
to  find  such  marked  similarity  in  the  figures  of  three  separate 
painters  and  certainly  adds  to  the  evidence  that  all  were  members 
of  the  same  atelier. 

K 5.  [PL  XLIII]:  Kalyx-Krater,  Louvre,  G 48.  From  Etruria: 
h.m.  0.495. 

Pettier,  Cat.  iii,  p.  918;  Album  ii,  p.  146,  pis.  93  and  94. 

Beazley,  J.H.S.  1910,  p.  41,  No.  3. 

The  vase  has  been  so  extensively  restored  that  a detailed  de- 
scription seems  useless.  Only  the  following  portions  are  old: 

A . The  l.h.  figure  as  far  the  knees;  of  the  second  only  the  head 
and  body  as  far  as  the  navel.  The  other  two  figures  are  entirely 


new. 


i62 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


B.  Small  portion  of  helmet  on  the  central  figure;  part  of  head 
and  body  of  the  bearded  man  with  petasos:  r.h.  figure  as  far  as 
the  thigh.  The  two  l.h.  figures  are  new. 

On  both  sides  youths  arming.  The  groups  are  separated  by  a 
palmette  scroll.  Of  the  borders  only  the  upper  are  old.  Obverse 
A 4 {d)  pointed  at  the  top  like  the  Corneto  krater;  reverse  B i (e). 
Traces  of  a purple  wreath  on  the  head  of  the  l.h.  figure  on  the 
obverse  and  a purple  cord  to  his  sword,  purple  wreath  on  his 
neighbor  and  a purple  wreath  on  the  r.h.  figure  of  the  reverse  are 
still  apparent. 

In  spite  of  its  fragmentary  condition  enough  details  of  the 
various  figures  are  preserved  to  show  the  Kleophradean  touches. 
The  eyes,  ears  (one  of  the  two  preserved  has  the  projecting  lobe), 
powerful,  aquiline  nose  with  the  nostrils  in  black  relief,  whiskers, 
moustache  with  dark  brown  dots  (like  those  on  the  Vatican  am- 
phora) and  the  collar  bones  as  on  K 2 are  all  distinctly  those 
used  by  him.  The  line  from  pubes  to  navel  is  in  black  relief. 

The  superficial  resemblance  which  the  krater  bears  to  the  work 
of  Euthymides  is  probably  due  to  the  restoration.  The  fact  that 
the  two  groups  are  separated  like  those  on  the  Turin  and  British 
Museum  psykters  instead  of  forming  a continuous  frieze  would 
indicate  that  the  vase  belongs  to  the  older  period. 

K 6.  [PI.  XLIV  and  Fig.  36]:  Fragmentary  Kylix,  Paris, 

Cabinet  des  Medailles,  536.  From  Vulci. 

De  Ridder,  Cat.  p.  403.  De  Witte,  Descrip,  p.  65,  i. 

Rev.  Arch.  1844,  ii,  p.  655,  1. 

Harrison,  J.H.S.  x,  p.  234,  pi.  ii. 

F.R.  i,  p.  264  (detail). 

Hartwig,  p.  406,  pi.  37,  3. 

Wernicke,  Jhh.  1892,  pp.  212,  10:214. 

Furtwangler,  B.P.W . 1894,  p.  108. 

Beazley,  J.H.S.  1910,  p.  44,  No.  8. 

7.  Theseus  and  Kerkyaneus.  A and  B.  Exploits  of  Theseus. 
The  entire  vase  is  in  such  a fragmentary  condition  that  though 
it  has  been  very  convincingly  restored  by  Miss  Harrison  it  does 
not  seem  worth  while  to  describe  the  various  groups  in  detail. 
The  technique  is  of  the  very  finest  description  and  represents  the 
highest  point  of  the  vase-painter’s  art. 


Plate  XLIV 


Cabinet  des  Medailles  536  (K  6) 


1 


1 


■I 


KXEOPHRADES 


163 


Enough  remains,  however,  to  assign  the  vase  to  the  hand  of 
Kleophrades  with  certainty.  The  head  of  Theseus  on  the  in- 
terior is  extraordinarily  like  that  of  the  warrior  on  the  interior  of 
the  Paris  kylLx.  The  hair,  eyes,  ear,  nose  with  its  well  defined 
nostrils,  the  mouth  with  its  prominent  lips  in  relief  lines  and  the 
dark  whiskers  are  all  characteristic  of  Kleophrades.  The  sword 
in  the  held  is  the  mate  of  that  on  the  signed  vase.  In  the  hgures 


of  the  exterior  we  hnd  the  typical  collar  bone,  frontal  knee,  and 
ankle.  The  hair  contours  are  incised  on  the  exterior  but  reserved 
on  the  interior. 

The  usual  meander  border  like  that  on  the  Paris  vase  is  to  be 
found  on  the  interior  but  the  border  of  the  outside  is  a key  pattern 
rather  a rare  feature  (cf.  Beazley,  loc.  cit.  p.  45,  note  21).  As  in 
the  signed  kylix  the  subjects  on  the  exterior  are  treated  as  a con- 
tinuous frieze  there  being  no  separation  of  the  groups  by  a pal- 
metto under  the  handles. 

The  inscriptions  on  the  exterior  call  for  no  comment  since  only 
the  names  of  Theseus  and  Athena  and  three  letters  of  the  name 
of  Sinis  are  to  be  seen.  Although  it  is  characteristic  of  Kleo- 
phrades to  use  only  the  formulae  of  koXos  or  /caXos  el  without  a 
name  the  Paris  kylix  shows  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  identifying 
his  figures  by  name,  which  in  no  way  affects  the  use  of  the  KaXos 
formula.  The  interior  shows  a curious  variation  of  Kerkyon’s 
name  as  we  must  read  KEPKVA[NEV^].  Although  we  have  no 
literary  tradition  for  this  form,  a fragment  of  a r.f.  vase  in  the 


Fig.  36 


164  EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 

Louvre  (Wernicke,  Jhh.  1892,  p.  209)  representing  the  same  pair 
of  wrestlers  with  the  name  KVANEV^  would  seem  to  make  it 
certain  that  this  variant  was  used  by  the  vase-painters.  The 
style  of  the  fragment  resembles  that  of  Kleophrades  to  a certain 
extent  but  it  is  impossible  to  assign  it  to  him  with  certainty.  It 
may  be  noted  that  on  it  occurs  the  rather  rare  slanting  palmette 
which  exists  on  the  Vivenzio  kalpis  but  which  is  by  no  means  a 
common  motive. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


COMPOSITION,  SUBJECT-MATTER,  AND  LIST 
OF  KAVO:^  NAMES 

In  order  to  secure  a proper  analysis  of  the  various  groups  and 
figures  which  are  found  on  the  signed  and  unsigned  vases  con- 
sidered in  the  previous  chapters,  some  new  method  is  evidently 
necessary,  since  owing  to  the  habit  of  the  artists  of  varying  their 
figures  it  is  not  always  easy  to  detect  the  underlying  similarities. 
This  is  best  done  by  reducing  the  figures  of  each  group  to  a geo- 
metrical formula  in  the  following  manner.  By  the  use  of  a panto- 
graph (a  machine  which  allows  the  enlargement  or  reduction  of 
any  design  to  scale)  the  salient  parts  of  any  figure  may  be  reduced 
to  a series  of  straight  lines.  This  is  done  by  drawing  lines  from 
the  top  of  the  head  to  the  center  of  the  neck  parallel  to  the 
face;  from  the  center  of  the  neck  to  the  pubes  or  along  the  center 
of  the  body  if  it  be  in  profile : from  the  tip  of  the  shoulder  through 
elbow,  wrist  and  arm  to  the  tips  of  the  fingers,  and  from  the  center 
of  the  thigh  through  knee,  ankle,  and  foot  (Pis.  XLV-XLVIII). 
In  this  way  we  obtain  an  absolutely  accurate  diagram  repre- 
senting the  fundamental  lines,  and  each  vase  here  represented  has 
been  so  treated.^  It  must  not,  however,  be  forgotten  that  figures 
so  drawn  from  photographs  of  vases  are  bound  to  show  a certain 
distortion  at  the  sides  which  does  not  exist  in  reproductions  made 
on  a flat  surface.  Such  distortion,  however,  does  not  seem  to 
alter  their  fundamental  character. 

Now,  while  this  method  is  inconclusive  as  negative  proof  (i.  e. 
one  cannot  say  that  because  a certain  unsigned  vase  fails  to 
conform  with  a signed  vase  it  cannot  be  from  the  hand  of  a 
given  artist),  it  is  effective  as  positive  proof,  for  if  any  unsigned 
vase  which  shows  the  stylistic  elements  of  any  master  also  dis- 

^ Owing  to  the  distortion  of  the  figures  in  the  only  photograph  I possess  of  the 
obverse  of  E 6 I have  been  obliged  to  omit  the  composition  drawing.  P V,  7 and 
8,  and  K 5 and  6 are  too  fragmentary  to  make  such  drawings  worth  while.  The 
same  is  true  of  all  the  attributed  fragments. 


Plate  XLV 


EII,^  EV  Es,A 


EIII,  5 E4,  5 


E5,5 


E 7,  5 E II,  5 E i6 


Plate  XLVII 


P6,  ^ 


Plate  XLVIII 


II H 


£ 


cq 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


1 66 

plays  the  same  composition  or  repeats  exactly  figures  existing 
on  his  signed  work,  that  certainly  forms  additional  evidence  in 
favor  of  the  correctness  of  attributing  the  work  to  that  artist. 
Unless  this  method  is  followed  it  is  not  possible  to  see  clearly  the 
duplication  of  certain  types,  for  very  frequently  a male  and  a 
female  figure  may  look  entirely  unlike  each  other  and  not  until 
we  obtain  their  geometrical  formula  does  the  similarity  of  line 
become  apparent. 

It  cannot  be  said,  of  course,  that  all  the  artists  of  the  period 
used  the  same  composition.  Certain  types  occur  in  all,  but  a very 
brief  survey  of  the  figures  on  Plates  XLV-XLVIII  will  convince 
any  one  that  although  in  their  own  work  they  have  a tendency 
to  duplicate  their  types,  they  do  not,  in  the  main,  bear  much 
relation  to  each  other.  Also,  from  the  extraordinary  number  of 
similar  types  repeated  on  different  vases  by  any  one  master  it 
seems  fair  to  conclude  that  unconsciously  all  the  artists  had  fallen 
into  the  habit  of  repeating  certain  attitudes  again  and  again 
though  by  means  of  extraneous  details  they  escaped  giving  the 
impression  of  monotony.  In  cases  where  a given  vase  shows 
equally  the  characteristics  of  two  masters  hke  Phintias  and 
Euthymides  and  it  is  possible  to  show  that  the  composition  agrees 
with  the  signed  work  of  one  and  not  of  the  other,  this  method 
affords  a valuable  additional  criterion  for  our  study  of  the  work 
of  that  master.  It  may  be  suggested  that  the  application  of  such 
a method  would  be  of  material  assistance  in  deciding  the  author- 
ship of  the  various  vases  from  Euphronios’  atelier. 

An  examination  of  the  four  signed  vases  by  Euthymides 
(omitting  the  Bocchi  plate)  and  the  unsigned  Theseus  and 
Korone  amphora  shows  that  he  possessed  a remarkable  tendency 
to  duplicate  his  types,  even  on  the  same  vase.  Out  of  twenty-five 
figures  the  following  are  duplicates  or  very  similar  in  composition. 

Central  figures  of  the  obverse  of  E I and  E II.  Both  show  a 
very  characteristic  arrangement  of  the  arms  to  form  a diamond 
and  this  we  find  repeated  on  three  other  figures,  Perithous  and 
Theseus  on  E III,  and  Theseus  on  the  obverse  of  E IV. 

Left-hand  figures  of  E I obv.  and  E III  rev. 

Right-hand  figures  of  E II  obv.  and  rev. 


COMPOSITION  AND  SUBJECT-MATTER 


167 

Right-hand  figure  of  E I rev.  and  left-hand  figure  of  E IV  rev. 

Central  figure  of  E III  obv.  and  right-hand  figure  of  reverse. 

To  find  that  more  than  half  the  entire  number  of  figures  are 
thus  repeated  in  only  five  vases  would  naturally  lead  us  to  con- 
clude that  a similarity  must  occur  in  the  unsigned  vases  and  such 
in  fact  is  the  case.  The  following  examples  of  duplication  are  to 
be  found  on  the  unsigned  vases : 

Right-hand  figures  of  E 4 obv.  and  E I obv. 

Left-hand  figures  of  E 4 obv.  and  E 3 obv. 

Central  figures  of  E II  rev.,  E i obv.,  and  E 6 rev. 

Right-hand  figures  of  obv.  and  rev.  of  E i. 

Left-hand  figures  of  E i obv.  and  E 2 rev. 

Right-hand  figures  of  E i obv.  and  rev.  of  E 7. 

Central  figure  of  E III  rev.  and  Thetis  on  E 16. 

Right-hand  figures  of  both  obv.  and  rev.  of  E 12. 

Central  figures  of  E I and  II  obv.  and  right-hand  youth  on  E 8 
rev.  The  left-hand  figure  of  the  rev.  shows  the  same  diamond 
scheme  of  the  arms,  as  does  Dionysos  on  the  obv.  of  E 5 though 
not  so  closely. 

Third  youth  from  1.  on  E 8 obv.  and  left-hand  figure  of  E II  rev. 

Left-hand  figure  of  E 9 and  central  figure  of  E 3 rev. 

The  obv.  of  E i and  the  rev.  of  E II  and  6 are  to  all  intents 
repetitions  of  each  other. 

Such  a series  of  repetitions  in  the  work  of  one  master  shows 
more  clearly  than  almost  anything  else  how  exceedingly  stereo- 
typed Euthymides  is  and  how  little  he  varies  from  his  groove. 

If  the  vases  of  Phintias  be  compared  with  those  of  Euthymides 
we  find  practically  no  resemblances  at  all  except  of  a very  super- 
ficial character.  There  is  a slight  likeness  between  the  left-hand 
figures  on  the  shoulders  of  E V and  P IV ; and  the  silen  on  the 
interior  of  P I shows  the  diamond  position  of  the  arms,  while  the 
groups  of  Theseus  and  Korone  on  E III,  and  Tityos  and  Leto  on 
P 4 are  conceived  in  somewhat  the  same  manner.  It  is  interest- 
ing that  we  should  have  the  javelin-thrower  six  times  repeated, 
but  the  two  figures  on  E 3 and  9 are  distinctly  more  erect  than 
their  companions  on  P 4 and  6 and  more  like  K 5.  P 7 is  unfor- 
tunately in  too  fragmentary  a state  for  one  to  draw  the  line  figure. 


i68 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


Among  the  signed  vases  of  Phintias  we  find  no  duplication  of 
types  at  all  except  that  there  is  a certain  similarity  of  attitude  in 
the  youth  on  P III  and  the  bearded  man  on  P IV.  In  the  un- 
signed vases  the  following  duplications  occur  : 

The  two  figures  of  Herakles  on  P II  and  P 5 are  exact  replicas 
of  each  other. 

Bearded  figures  on  P IV,  P i and  2. 

Shoulder  pictures  of  P IV  and  P i. 

Javelin- throwers  on  P 4 and  6. 

Right-hand  figures  on  rev.  of  both  vases. 

Although  the  number  of  the  Phintias  vases  is  far  less  than  those 
by  Euthymides  (only  half  as  many  signed  and  unsigned)  the  fact 
that  he  duplicates  his  types  so  seldom  simply  goes  to  prove  what 
has  all  along  been  insisted  on  in  these  pages,  that  he  is  more 
original  and  varied  and  far  less  stereotyped  than  Euthymides. 

The  material  at  our  command  in  the  case  of  Hypsis  is  so  scanty 
that  few  conclusions  can  be  drawn  by  our  method.  The  central 
Amazon  on  H I is  somewhat  similar  to  the  maenad  on  the  obv.  of 
H I and  there  exists  some  resemblance  between  the  left-hand 
Amazon  on  H I and  the  figure  similarly  placed  on  the  obv.  of  E i . 
In  all  probability  such  figures  as  those  of  the  javelin- throwers 
were  more  or  less  the  common  property  of  most  of  the  artists  of 
the  period. 

Slightly  less  inconclusive  are  the  results  as  far  as  Kleophrades 
is  concerned.  In  the  five  vases  represented  in  the  composition 
drawings  the  following  similarities  are  apparent : 

Left-hand  figures  on  K i obv.  and  K 2 obv. 

Left-hand  and  central  figures  on  K 2 obv.  and  E 4 obv. 

Central  figures  on  K i rev.  and  K 3 rev. 

Right-hand  figure  of  K i obv.  and  central  figure  of  K 2 obv. 

The  right-hand  figure  of  K 4 rev.  follows  the  regular  type. 

It  is  extremely  probable  that  if  a composition  drawing  of  every 
vase  attributed  to  Kleophrades  were  to  be  made  a large  number 
of  similarities  would  be  found. 

Of  the  four  artists,  Euthymides  is  the  greatest  stickler  for 
balancing  his  figures,  almost  every  line  in  any  group  being 
matched  by  its  complementary  line  with  very  little  variation;  and 


COMPOSITION  AND  SUBJECT-MATTER 


169 

while  the  effect  is  more  severely  symmetrical  it  is  certainly  much 
less  free.  With  the  exception  of  E 8 he  shows  no  tendency  to 
separate  the  figures  on  the  same  side  into  detached  groups. 
Phintias,  on  the  other  hand,  is  much  less  particular  about  match- 
ing all  his  lines  and  consequently  his  compositions  appear  much 
freer  and  less  stilted;  this  applies  as  well  to  both  Hypsis  and 
Kleophrades. 

Subject-Matter 

The  classification  of  the  different  subjects  used  by  the  artists  of 
the  cycle  is  somewhat  difficult  since  so  many  do  not  belong  to  any 
distinct  type.  Scenes  where  a warrior’s  departure  or  a single 
hoplite  in  armor  are  represented  are  certainly  not  taken  from  the 
Epic  Cycle  and  hence  cannot  be  classed  as  heroic  ” nor  can  they 
strictly  speaking  be  classed  as’  ‘‘  genre.”  The  safest  term  for 
them  is  perhaps  ‘‘  military.”  The  subjects  will  be  classified  as 
follows. 

I.  Mythological.  This  includes  all  scenes  where  the  gods, 
or  heroes  like  Herakles  or  Theseus,  are  represented. 

II.  Heroic.  All  subjects  which  from  their  nature  or  in- 
scriptions are  drawn  from  the  Epic  Cycle. 

III.  Military. 

IV.  Gymnastic. 

V.  Symposia. 

VI.  Komos. 

VII.  Genre.  Any  scene  from  daily  life  not  falling  in  any  of 
the  above  classes. 

So  few  of  the  Kleophrades  vases  have  been  considered  that  one 
hesitates  to  draw  any  conclusions  as  to  his  choice  of  subjects. 


E. 

III,  obv.  and  rev. 

IV,  obv. 

3,  obv. 

5,  obv. 

12,  obv.  and  rev. 
16. 


Class  I 

P. 

I,  obv.  rev.  and  int. 
II,  obv.  and  rev. 

3- 

4,  obv. 

5,  obv. 

7- 


H.  K. 

I.  I. 

I,  obv.  I,  obv. 

6. 


170 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


E. 

rev. 


1/  obv. 
II,  obv. 
VI. 

1,  obv. 

2,  rev. 
4,  obv. 
6,  obv. 

13- 

14. 

15- 

II,  rev. 

IV,  rev. 

3,  rev. 

8. 

9- 

17- 

V. 


Class  II 

P. 

none. 

Class  III 
shoulder. 


Class  IV 
4,  rev. 

6,  obv.  and  rev. 

7,  rev. 


Class  V 
III,  shoulder. 


H. 

none. 
I,  rev. 


none. 


none. 


K. 

none. 


2,  obv. 

5- 


2,  rev. 

4- 

6. 


none. 


10. 

I,  shoulder. 

I. 

18. 

8. 

Class  VI 

I, 

rev. 

2. 

none. 

I,  rev. 

7- 

Class  VII 

3,  rev. 

L 

rev. 

HI. 

II. 

none. 

6, 

rev. 

IV. 

I,  shoulder. 

I. 

2. 

The  summing-up  of  the  choice  of  subjects  by  the  four  masters 
shows  that  all  still  follow  the  fashion  of  the  time  in  giving  prefer- 
ence to  mythological  and  heroic  scenes  with  athletic  subjects  a 
close  second,  except  in  the  case  of  Euthymides  who  uses  more 
military  than  mythological  scenes.  Curiously  enough  the  same 
proportion  holds  nearly  true  in  both  the  signed  and  unsigned  vases, 

^ Although  the  names  of  Hector,  Priam,  and  Hecuba  are  applied  to  the  figures 
on  the  obverse  of  E I they  are  purely  arbitrary  and  the  scene  is  much  better 
included  in  Class  HI. 


COMPOSITION  AND  SUBJECT-MATTER 


171 


three  to  two  in  the  former,  seven  to  four  in  the  latter.  Phintias, 
after  mythological  subjects,  divides  his  interest  between  genre, 
symposia,  and  athletic  scenes  only  using  a military  group  once. 
Of  the  four,  Euthymides  is  the  only  one  to  use  any  subject 
drawn  from  the  Epic  Cycle.  Hypsis  seems  to  prefer  myth- 
ological and  genre  scenes  but  his  material  is  almost  too  scanty 
to  supply  any  conclusions. 

No  definite  rule  seems  to  be  followed  in  the  antithesis  of  sub- 
jects. In  the  work  of  Euthymides  mythological  scenes  either 
occur  on  both  sides  or  are  balanced  by  an  athletic  subject  on  the 
reverse  while  heroic  subjects  are  balanced  by  a revel  or  an  athletic 
scene.  Phintias  on  P 4 has  a mythological  scene  balanced  by  an 
athletic  one. 


Names  occurring  in  Mythology  or  the  Epic  Cycle  like  those  of 
the  gods  or  heroes  like  Theseus  have  been  omitted. 

In  these  lists  a star  indicates  that  the  name  is  used  in  conjunc- 
tion with  KoXos;  a dagger  that  the  name  is  used  by  another  artist, 
or  occurs  on  a vase  attributed  to  him,  and  a double  dagger  that 
the  name  occurs  on  another  vase  without  the  signature  of  an 
artist,  which  has  never  been  assigned  to  any  one. 


List  of  KAVO^  Names 


Euthymides 


Signed  Vases 


fAntiopea 

Eledemos 

Euthyboulos 

Heres 

jKomarchos 

Korone 


EIII 

El 

Eli 

EIII 

El 

EIII 


t*Megakles 
jOlympiodoros  ? 


EIV 

Eli 

Eli 


E V:  PIV 


Orsimenes 

Pentathlos 


t*Phayllos 

t*Smikythos 

{Teles 


EIV,  3:  P6 
E V:  P I 


El 

Eli 


Thorykion 


172 


EUTHYMIDES  AND  HIS  FELLOWS 


J*Antias 

Antiphon 

Damas 

Hegesias 

Hegilla 

{Hipparchos 

Hippomedon 

Kleokrates 

Kydias 

Ladamas 

t*Leagros 

Lykos 

Nicharchon  ? 

Phintias  ? 

Polylaos 

Polyllos 

Sekline 

Tranion 


J*Chairias 

Kisine 

t*Megakles 

Simades 

Chares 

Demetrios 

Demostratos 

Ekrates 

{Epilykos 

Etearchos 

Eudemos 

fEuthymides 


Unsigned  Vases 

Eg 

E8 

E6 

E8 

E 10 

E8 

E8 

E 10 

E7 

E3 

E8,  9,  17 
E8 
E7 
E 14 
E 10 
E8 
E 10 
E8 

Phintias 
Signed  Vases 

P III,  8 
PII 

PIV:  E V 
PII 

Unsigned  Vases 
4 

P I 

P3 

P6 
P6 
P6 
P6 
P E 3 


COMPOSITION  AND  SUBJECT-MATTER 


173 


tPhayllos 

P6:  EIV^ 

Philon 

P6 

Ptoiodoros 

P6 

Simon 

P6 

t*Smikythos 

P i:  E V 

*Sosias 

P4 

Sostratos 

4,  6 

Sotinos 

P4 

Tlenpolemos 

P I 

Xeno(kles  ?) 

P 6 
Hypsis 

Signed  Vases 


Andromache 

HI 

Antiopea 

HI:  EHI 

Herios 

HI 

Hyphopyle 

HI 

Simos 

HI 

Unsigned  Vases 

Briachos 

H I 

Erophyllis 

H I 

Hippaichmos 

H I 

Seragye 

H I 

ADDENDA 


In  J.H.S.  1916,  pp.  123-128  Beazley  gives  a full  list  of  attributions  to  the 
Kleophrades  painter  added  since  his  original  article.  Our  list  is  therefore  to 
be  increased  by  the  following: 

Nolan  amphora,  Oxford  273.  A,  discobolus  and  trainer:  B,  Artemis. 

Fragment,  Louvre  198  bis.  Head  of  youth. 

Pelike,  Girgenti.  Jhb.  1893,  p.  183.  A,  seated  youth. 

Kalpis,  Castellani  Coll.,  Rome.  Herakles  and  Lion.  Inscription 

KAVO:^EI. 

Fragment,  kalyx-krater,  Cab.  de  Med.  420.  Arming  scene. 

Fragment  from  neck  of  volute  krater,  Cab.  de  Med.  863.  Youth  arming. 

Neck  amphora,  now  lost.  Gerhard,  Aus.  Vas,  pi.  268.  A^  warrior  with 
helmet.  B,  warrior  with  wrap. 

Pelike  (?)  formerly  in  Canino  Coll.,  now  lost.  Drawing  in  the  Berlin 
Apparatus,  16.17.1.  A,  youth  in  himation  with  stylus  and  stick.  B,  youth 
in  himation. 

This  brings  the  total  of  attributions  to  fifty-nine  vases  and  fragments. 


174 


INDEXES 


I 


■I 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Advertising,  21,  30. 

Aegis,  49,  154. 

Alabastron,  69. 

Amazon,  135,  136,  137,  139,  141,  143, 
144,  148,  149,  150,  168. 

Amentum  (of  javelin),  73. 

Amphora,  100. 

Anaxyrides,  14,  47,  49,  54. 
Apoxyomenos,  69. 

Archer,  121. 

Scythian,  14,  47,  49,  54. 

Arrow,  48,  83,  124,  148. 

Atelier,  arrangement  of,  27. 

Athlete,  19,  50,  68,  73,  83,  88,  124,  127, 
131,  156,  160. 

Axis  of  kylix,  location  of,  82. 

Battle-axe  (sagaris),  14,  47,  54,  143. 
Biga,  55- 

Bird,  97,  1 21  (shield  device). 
Black-figure  Style,  37,  38,  114. 
Black-figured  technique  on  r.  f.  vases,  38, 
55,  156,  158. 

Boots,  47,  64,  94,  120. 

Bow,  14,  47,  94,  1 21,  124,  143,  148, 
150- 

Bow  case,  143. 

Bracelet,  50,  77. 

‘ Buckelldckchen,’  94,  97,  in,  113,  122, 
125,  127,  132,  143,  144. 

Bull’s  head,  148  (shield  device). 

Cap,  94,  156  (fox  skin),  158. 

Centaur,  148  (shield  device). 

Cestus,  50,  156. 

Chair,  69,  77,  100,  114,  115. 

Chariot,  55,  60,  121,  136,  142,  156. 
Chelys,  55,  64,  105,  107,  108,  115,  116. 
Cinquefoil  (?)  shield  device,  121. 
Composition  of  figures,  165  ff. 


Couches,  87,  88,  107. 

Cuirass,  12,  47,  54,  58,  60,  77,  148,  149, 

154,  155,  157- 

Cushion,  54,  75,  94,  100,  105,  ns,  116, 
138. 

Dedications,  35,  85,  115,  117,  121,  122. 
Deer,  50,  52,  119,  156. 

Departure,  scenes  of,  12,  47,  49,  54,  60, 
_i55- 

Discus,  14,  50,  68,  124,  131,  160. 

Dog,  47,  49,  52,  54,  56,  121,  156,  158. 
Dolphin,  86,  87,  121. 

Double  axe,  77, 

Drawing,  errors  in,  16,  84,  137,  156. 

irregularity  of,  22. 

Drinking  horn,  94. 

Earrings,  15,  16,  50,  58,  77,  80,  86,  143. 
Enneakrunos,  139. 

Entrails  (sacrificial),  54. 

Flower,  50,  121,  122. 

Flute  case,  75,  97. 

Flutes,  double,  23,  64,  73,  97,  118. 

single,  55. 

Forgeries,  135,  note  i. 

Fountain,  104,  138. 

Goad,  60,  1 21,  136. 

Graffiti,  13,  16,  61,  78,  106,  107,  117,  119, 
120,  122,  129,  136,  137. 

Grape-vine,  58,  96,  97,  121,  143. 

Greaves,  12,  23,  47,  54,  58,  60,  121,  135, 
136,  141,  143,  144,  148,  ISO,  154,  155. 

Halteres,  73,  88. 

Hands,  interchange  of,  84,  137. 

Hat  (petasos),  120,  162. 

(pilos),  78,  83. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


178 


Head,  plastic  head  as  decoration,  119. 

Helmet,  12,  23,  48,  49,  54,  58,  60,  81 
(Attic),  82  (Attic),  84,  89  (Attic),  90, 
91,  121,  132,  135  (Attic),  137  (Attic), 
142  (Attic),  143,  148  (Attic  and  Corin- 
thian), 149,  150,  154  (Attic  and  Cor- 
inthian), 155,  156,  162. 

Hetaira,  55,  75,  76,  115. 

Horse,  55,  60,  63,  82  (shield  device),  121, 
136,  142,  143,  144,  156. 

Hydra,  33. 

Hydria,  104,  105,  138. 

Impression  in  baking,  78. 

Incised  lines  for  anatomical  details,  94, 

95. 

Infibulation,  68,  72. 

Inscription,  added  later,  102. 

erasure  of,  90. 

incised,  86. 

Inscriptions,  errors  in,  14,  19,  68,  78,  97, 
115,  121,  124,  126,  128,  132. 

laudatory,  19,  64,  68,  80,  115,  120, 

121,  122. 

opprobrious,  ii. 

senseless,  12,  16,  47,  49,  55,  60,  73, 

80,  128,  130,  136,  139,  150. 

Ivy  wreath  (shield  device),  136. 

Javelin  (akontion),  50,  73,  124,  126,  128, 
129,  130,  131,  160. 

Joint  workmanship  on  same  vase,  33,  53, 
57,  62,  127,  159  note  2,  160. 

Jug,  IS5,  156. 

Kalpis,  see  hydria. 

Kantharos,  58,  97,  121,  143. 

Kerykeion,  94,  120. 

Kidaris,  14,  47,  49,  121,  143,  148,  150. 

Kithara,  47,  50,  154. 

Komos,  12,  55,  64,  1 18,  154. 

Kottabos,  1 1 7, 

Kotyle,  55,  64,  1 15,  1 19. 

Krater,  100,  119. 

Krobylos,  51,  58,  in,  124. 

Krotala,  23,  58,  119,  120,  154. 

Kylix,  55,  64,  100,  105. 


Lebes,  80. 

Libation,  155,  158. 

Lion  (shield  device),  143. 

Lion’s  head  (as  fountain),  104,  138. 

skin,  94,  95,  148  (as  helmet),  150, 

154  (as  helmet),  155. 

Maenad,  58,91,97,99,  in,  113,122, 143. 
Mattock  {skapane),  19. 

Meta,  55. 

Metic,  no. 

Minotaur,  20,  79,  80. 

Name,  father’s,  12,  14,  29,  146. 
Necklace,  50,  55. 

Octopus  (shield  device),  82. 

Oil,  69. 

Panther,  50,  52,  97,  131. 

Panther-skin,  50,  94,  148,  150. 
Partnership  of  Euthymides  and  Phintias, 
34- 

Phiale,  54,  i55- 

Pickaxe  (dikella),  19,  73,  160. 

Pinakes,  painting  of,  90. 

Pithos,  55. 

Plektron,  107,  115. 

Purse,  100. 

Quadriga,  60,  63,  121,  136,  156. 

Quiver,  14,  47,  49,  50,  54,  94,  124,  148, 
154,  155- 
case,  124. 

Ram’s  head,  154  (as  cheek-piece  of  hel- 
met), 155. 

Reins,  60,  61,  121,  122,  136,  143. 
Repairing,  instances  of,  98. 

Rock,  80,  94,  132. 

Saccos,  16,  48,  50,  58,  86,  115. 

Sandals,  124,  126. 

Scarf,  12,  15. 

Serpent,  143. 

Shell,  vase  in  form  of,  109. 

Shield,  12,  14,  47,  49,  60,  82,  83,  89,  121, 
132,  136,  137,  143,  148,  150. 


GENERAL  INDEX  1 79 


Shield  devices,  12,  14,  47,  49,  60,  82, 
83,  84,  89,  91,  121,  136,  143,  148. 
Shoes,  12,  54. 

Shop,  potter’s,  100. 

Signatures,  mistakes  in,  14,  19,  30,  82, 
98,  105. 

Signatures,  with  i-Koiriaev,  26,  27,  28,  33, 
36,  37,  82,  93,  109,  146,  ISO. 

with  eypa<f)crep,  12,  14,  26,  27,  28, 

94,  97,  100,  105,  107,  135,  136,  146. 

with  eypa(f)€,  23,  30. 

with  kwol-qaev  and  kypa^aev,  26, 

note  2. 

without  verb,  14,  36,  138,  139. 

Silen,  58,  91,  94,97,99,111,119,120, 143. 

as  shield  device,  12  (head),  14 

(dancing),  89  (dancing). 

• head  as  fountain,  138. 

Sling,  84. 

Spear,  16,  47,  54,  60,  82,  89,  121,  132, 

136,  137,  142,  143,  150,  154,  155,  156. 

Staff,  12,  47,  60,  61,  64,  68,  69,  100,  105, 

IIS,  116,  118,  119,  IS4,  156. 

Star,  iss  (on  shoulder  strap). 


Stephane,  is,  16,  48,  so,  SS,  77,  86,  97, 

121,  123,  124,  is6. 

Stick,  124,  128,  136,  160. 

Strigil,  19. 

Sword,  16,  47,  49,  S4,  58,  77,  79, 121, 132, 
136,  148,  ISS,  162,  163. 

Sword  belt,  16,  47,  49,  S4,  58,  77,  121, 

122,  132,  136,  148,  ISO,  IS5,  156,  162. 
Symposium,  23,  73,  103,  113,  117. 

Thyrsos,  38,  97,  132,  143. 

Tree,  132. 

Trident,  121. 

Tripod,  Rape  of,  38,  48,  94,  93,  97,  98. 
Trumpet,  136. 

Unsigned  vases,  problem  of,  28. 

Veins,  indication  of,  16,  113. 

Warrior,  12,  13,  16,  23,  47,  49,  34,  38, 
60,  81,  82,  89,  121,  132,  143,  148,  133, 
136,  138,  162. 

Whip,  136. 


INDEX  OF  MUSEUMS 


Adria,  Museo  Bocchi:  kylix  214  (Chai- 
rias),  p.  103. 

Athens,  National  Museum:  kylix,  C.C. 
1157  (E 13),  p.  81;  lekythos,  b.  f.,p.  56. 

, Acropolis  A i,  p.  26,  note  2. 

, Acropolis  Museum:  pinax  (E  19), 

Fig.  16. 

Baltimore,  Johns  Hopkins  University 
Coll.:  kylix  (P  III),  Fig.  17. 

Berlin,  Antiquarium:  1801,  p.  33;  1909, 
p.  38;  2159,  p.  38;  2180  (E  8),  Pis. 
20-21;  2181,  p.  114;  2264,  p.  59; 

2283,  p.  146;  2284,  p.  146;  2285, 

p.  1 16;  2304  (E  14),  Fig.  12;  4040, 
p.  103;  4041,  p.  34,  note  I. 

Bonn,  Provincial  Museum:  kalpis  (E  V), 
Fig.  5- 

Boston,  Museum  of  Fine  Arts:  95.27 
(signed  by  Euphronios),  PI.  24;  98.932 
(signed  by  Hieron),  p.  29,  note  i; 
00.435  (E  16),  p.  86;  01.8019  (P  6), 
PI.  32;  01.8026  (signed  by  Amasis), 
p.  155;  10.196,  p.  56;  10.203  (E  17), 
Fig.  14;  13.186  (signed  by  Hieron  and 
Makron),  p.  27;  13.193,  p.  91. 

Brussels,  Musee  de  Cinquantenaire:  stam- 
nos,  signed  by  Smikros,  p.  35,  note  3; 
R 227  (E  10),  PI.  28;  kantharos, 
signed  by  Douris,  p.  28. 

Cambridge,  Fitzwilliam  Museum:  kya- 
thos,  b.f.,  pp.  30,  39;  oinochoe,  p.  145. 

Compiegne:  psykter,  p.  91;  kylix  1106, 
p.  95,  note  I. 

Copenhagen:  krater,  p.  74;  pelike, 

P*  153- 

Corneto,  Museo  Tarquiniense:  amphora 
(PII),  PI.  26;  krater  (K4),  PL  42; 
kylix,  p.  136,  note  i;  kylix  (signed  by 
Oltos),  p.  59. 


Dresden,  Alhertinum:  kalpis  (E9), 

Fig.  9. 

Eleusis:  lekythos  (P  VI),  Fig.  21. 

Florence,  Museo  Archeologico:  3985 

(E  12),  PI.  23. 

Geneva,  Palais  PAriana:  b.f.  hydria, 
p.  135,  note  I. 

Girgenti,  Collection  Baron  Giudice:  kalyx 
krater,  p.  153. 

Karlsruhe:  alabastron,  signed  by  Psiax, 
pp.  72,  95,  note  I. 

Leipzig:  stamnos  (P  7),  PI.  34;  stam- 
nos,  p.  74;  fragments,  p.  91;  kylix 
(E  15),  Fig.  13;  kylix  (P  V),  Fig.  20. 
Leyden:  23.36  (E  5),  p.  57. 

London,  British  Museum:  E 12,  p.  33; 
E25,  pp.  52,  81;  E159  (PIV),  PI. 
27,  Fig.  18;  E 163,  p.  61,  note  i; 
E 175,  pp.  63,  141,  note  i;  E 253 
(H  i),  PI.  37;  E 254  (E  i),  PI.  7; 
E255  (E2:  P5),  P1.8;  E256  (E3), 
PI.  9;  E 261,  p.  52;  E 266,  p.  44; 
E438,  p.  74;  E458,  p.  127;  E767 
(E  7),  Pis.  17-19. 

Madrid,  Museo  Arqueologico:  63,  p.  38; 
68,  pp.  32,  39. 

Munich,  Antiquarium:  Jahn  4 (HI),  PI. 
35;  Jahn  1240,  p.  35,  note  2;  2302,  p. 
95,  note  i;  2305  (K  2),  PI.  41;  2307 
(E  I),  PI.  i;  2308  (E  II),  PI.  2;  2309 
(E  HI),  PI.  3;  2421  (P  i),  PI.  28;  2422 
(P  2),  Figs.  24-25;  2427,  p.  75,  note  i; 
2428,  p.  75,  note  i;  2590  (PI),  PI.  25; 
2620  (Geryon  kylix),  p.  70. 

, Glyptothek:  lekythos,  p.  153. 


INDEX  OF  MUSEUMS 


l8l 


Naples,  Museo  Nazionale:  2422  (“  Vi- 
venzio  ” kalpis),  pp.  147,  164. 

New  York,  Metropolitan  Museum: 
column  krater  (Jatta),  p.  13,  note  i; 
psykter,  10.210.18,  p.  30;  kylix  signed 
by  Psiax,  14.146.2,  p.  35,  note  2,  p.  95, 
note  i;  neck-amphora,  13.233,  p.  153; 
amphora,  Panathenaic  shape  07. 286.79, 
P-  153- 

Palermo:  kylix,  signed  by  Chachrylion, 
p.  35,  note  2. 

Paris,  Cabinet  des  Medailles:  523,  p.  32; 

535  (KI),  PI.  38;  536  (K6),  pi.  44, 
Fig.  36. 

, Louvre:  Epilykos  fragment,  G 10 

his,  p.  34,  note  2;  G 31  (E  18),  Fig.  15; 
G 41  (P  3),  Pis.  29-30;  G 42  (P  4), 
PI.  31;  G 44  (E  6),  Pis.  15-16;  G 45, 
pp.  57,  61,  62,  67;  G 46,  p.  57;  G 48 
(K5),P1.  43;G5o,pp.  75,  155,  note  i; 
G 51,  p.  75,  note  i;  G 103  (Antaios 
krater),  pp.  44,  69,  70;  G 105,  p.  72; 
S 1317,  p.  89,  note  i;  loutrophoros, 
pp.  38,  158. 

, Musee  Charles  X:  Chairias  kylix, 

p.  103. 

Perugia:  Troilos  kylix,  signed  by  Eu- 
phronios,  p.  72. 

Petrograd,  Ermitage:  krater  (St.  1275) 
(P  8),  Fig.  30;  psykter  644  (St.  1670) 


signed  by  Euphronios,  pp.  19,  35,  70, 
76;  neck-amphora  613  (St.  1456),  p. 
153;  669,  p.  153. 

Philadelphia,  University  Museum:  am- 
phora signed  by  Menon,  pp.  37,  95, 
note  I. 

, Memorial  Hall:  stamnos,  p.  153. 

Rome,  Castellani  Coll.:  kylix,  p.  32; 
kalpis,  p.  152. 

, Torlonia  Coll.:  kalpis  (H  II), 

PI.  36. 

, Vatican:  amphora  496  (K  i), 

Pis.  39-40;  hydria,  b.f.,  p.  31;  am- 
phora 495,  pp.  1 14,  127. 

, Villa  Giulia:  22643,  fragment 

(P  9),  Fig.  31. 

Rouen:  kalpis  23,  p.  153. 

Stuttgart,  Hauser’s  Coll.:  fragments, 

p.  84,  note  2. 

Syracuse:  lekythos,  b.f.,  p.  74,  note  i. 

Turin,  University  Museum:  psykter 

(E  IV),  Pis.  4-5,  Fig.  3. 

Vienna,  Oesterreichisches  Museum:  333 
(E  ii),  PI.  22,  Fig.  10. 

Wurzburg:  300  (E  4;  K 3),  PI.  12; 

kalpis,  p.  76. 


Disappeared:  kylix,  formerly  in  the  Van  Branteghem  Coll.,  p.  103;  kylix,  signed 
by  Euergides,  p.  74,  note  i ; plate,  signed  by  Euthymides  (E  VI),  p.  23, 
(formerly  in  Mus.  Bocchi,  Adria);  lekythos,  b.f.  (formerly  in  Lord  Guilford’s 
Coll.),  p.  32. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 


An  asterisk  placed  beside  the  number  indicates  that  the  name  occurs  on  a vase  described  in 
this  work.  The  word  ‘ potter  ’ is  used  generically  to  include  vase-painters. 


Achilles,  59. 

Adrastos,  59. 

Aegisthus,  77*,  78,  79. 

Agamemnon,  59. 

Aidos,  124*,  126. 

Ajax,  59. 

Alkibiades,  31. 

Alkyoneus,  94*,  95,  98, 

Amasis  (potter),  39,  146*,  147,  155. 
Amphiaraos  (?),  58. 

Amphitrite,  121*. 

Anakles  (potter),  33. 

Andokides  (potter),  ii,  37,  38,  61. 
Andromache,  136*,  138,  139,  173. 

Antaia  or  Anteia,  13 1*. 

Antias,  32,  38,  39,  73*,  74,  83,  131,  172. 
Antiopea,  16*,  17,  52,  86,  136*,  137,  139, 
171,  173- 

Antiphon,  68*,  172. 

Apollon,  48*,  49,  so,  51,  52,  94*,  96,  1 13, 
124*,  125,  126,  133. 

Archikles  (potter),  33. 

Argeia,  59. 

Ariadne,  80,  121*,  122. 

Artemis,  48*,  49,  50,  52,  124,  126. 
Athena,  48,  49*,  52,  154,  155,  163*. 

Briachos,  143*,  145,  173. 

Brygos  (potter),  13. 

Chachrylion  (potter),  35,  note  2,  39,  52, 
90,  103. 

Chairestratos,  64*. 

Chairias,  38,  39,  71,  85,  93*,  100,  102, 
103,  107,  108*,  no,  172. 

Chares,  32,  38,  39,  121*,  122,  126,  172. 
Chelis  (potter),  40. 

Chrysothemis,  77*,  78. 


Damas,  60*,  64,  172. 

Deiniades  (potter),  33,  94,  96,  no. 
Deiphyle,  59. 

Demetrios,  108,  115*,  117,  172. 
Demostratos,  124*,  126,  172. 

Dexios,  49*,  127*. 

Dikaios,  57*,  64,  67. 

Diomedes,  132*. 

Dionysia  Krene,  138*,  139. 

Dionysos,  52,  58,  91,  97*,  113,  121*,  132*, 
143*,  144,  167. 

Dorotheos,  39. 

Douris  (potter),  13,  26,  28,  64,  116,  146. 

Ekrates,  128*,  130,  172. 

Eledemos,  12*,  32,  130,  171. 

Epidromos,  52. 

Epiktetos  (potter),  26,  36,  37,  39,  40, 
72,  90. 

Epilykos  (potter),  34,  36. 

, as  name,  128*,  130,  172. 

Ergoteles  (potter),  29. 

Ergotimos  (potter),  29. 

Erophyllis,  143*,  173. 

Etearchos,  128*,  129,  130,  172. 

Eucheiros  (potter),  29. 

Eudemos,  128*,  130,  172. 

Euergides  (potter),  74. 

Euphronios  (potter),  12*,  33,  34,  37,  39, 
44,  56,  69,  70,  71,  72,  76,  103,  106,  no, 
in,  140. 

Euthyboulos,  14*,  32,  171. 

Euthymides,  n-92;  date,  40;  style  of, 
40  ff.;  relation  to  other  artists,  32  ff., 
35  ff.;  relation  to  b.  f.  style,  37. 

, as  name,  35*,  115*,  117, 121*,  122*, 

172. 

Exekias  (potter),  26. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES  I 83 


Glaukytes  (potter),  33. 

, as  name,  90*. 

Hegesias,  69*,  172. 

Hegilla,  75*,  172. 

Hekabe,  12*,  14,  15,  42,  62,  86. 

Hektor,  12*,  52,  53,  74,  141. 

Helene,  15*,  17. 

Herakles,  33,  41,  note  2,  48,  49,  91,  94*, 
95,  96,  III,  113,  127,  133,  148*,  149, 

152,  153,  154,  155,  167. 

Heres,  16*,  17,  32,  171. 

Herios,  136*,  139,  173. 

Hermes,  94*,  120*. 

Hieron  (potter),  27,  87. 

Hilinos  (potter),  95,  note  i. 
Hippaichmos,  143*,  144,  145,  173. 
Hipparchos,  39,  68*,  71,  72,  172, 
Hippokrates,  31,  39,  95,  note  i. 
Hippomedon,  69*,  172. 

Hyphopyle,  136*,  137,  139,  141,  144,  173. 
Hypnos,  95. 

Hypsipyle,  59,  137,  139. 

Hypsis,  135-145;  relation  to  other  artists, 
36,  139;  style  of,  140;  use  of  koKos 
name,  139. 

lolaos,  154,  155. 

Kalliades  (potter),  28. 

KaXos  without  name,  156*,  158,  160*,  161. 
Kerkyaneus,  162,  163*. 

Kerkyon,  19*,  20,  38,  43,  63. 

Kisine,  97*,  99,  172. 

Kleitos,  20. 

Kleokrates,  75*,  172. 

Kleophrades,  146-164;  relation  to  other 
artists,  36,  146,  147;  style  of,  150  ff.; 
use  of  KttXos,  158,  163. 

Klytemnaestra,  77,  78*. 

Klytios,  20. 

Komarchos,  12*,  32,  56,  171. 

Korone,  15*,  38,  42,  62,  166,  167,  171. 
Kydias,  65*,  67,  172. 

Ladamas,  50*,  54,  172. 

Lampon,  31. 


Leagros,  31,  32,  38,  39,  68*,  69*,  71,  72, 
73%  74,  102,  103,  172. 

Leto,  50,  52,  123,  124*,  125,  126,  167, 
Lykos,  69*,  71,  72,  172. 

Lykurgos  (?),  58. 

Makron  (potter),  27. 

Masistios,  31. 

Megakles,  23*,  31, 90*,  91, 105*,  106,  no, 
171,  172. 

Memnon,  39. 

Menon  (potter),  37,  95. 

Myson  (potter),  26. 

Nearchos  (potter),  20,  26. 

Nicharchon  (?),  67*,  172. 

Nikosthenes  (potter),  33,  36. 

Odysseus,  59. 

Oltos  (potter),  30,  59,  134. 

Olympiodoros  (?),  21*,  31,  32,  38,  39,  40, 
43,  74,  171- 

Onesimos  (potter),  63,  72,  142. 

Orestes,  77*,  79. 

Orsimenes,  14*,  32,  171. 

Orthagoras,  21. 

Pamphaios  (potter),  33,  109. 

Patroklos,  132*, 

Pedieus,  39,  136*. 

Peisistratidae,  67. 

Peleus,  13 1*. 

Pentathlos,  14*,  32,  171. 

Perikles,  31. 

Perithous,  16*,  43,  44,  50,  80,  85,  166. 
Phayllos,  14*,  19*,  30,  31,  40,  44,  50,  53, 
54,  79,  129*,  130,  171,  173. 

Philon,  30,  39,  128*,  129,  130,  173. 
Phintias,  93-134;  as  KaXos  name,  83*, 
172;  relation  to  other  artists,  33,  35, 
no;  style  of,  no. 

Polylaos,  75*,  172. 

Polyllos,  68*,  172. 

Polyneikes,  59. 

Poseidon,  121*. 

Priamos,  12*,  16,  39,  41,  42,  43,  44,  50, 
60,  66,  107. 

Prokrustes,  20. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 


184 


Psiax  (potter),  35,  note  2,  72,  95,  note  i, 

139- 

Ptoiodoros,  128*,  130,  173. 

Python  (potter),  28. 

Sekline,  75*,  76,  172. 

Seragye,  143*,  145,  173. 

Simades,  97*,  99,  172. 

Simon,  128*,  130,  173. 

Simos,  136*,  139,  173. 

Sinis,  20,  163*. 

Skiron,  20,  80. 

Skythes  (potter), 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, 74, 130- 
Smikros  (potter),  30,  35,  note  2,  74,  122. 
Smikythos,  23*,  30,  39,  115*,  117,  130, 
171,  173- 

Sosias,  1 15,  124*,  126,  173. 

Sostratos,  121*,  122,  124*,  126,  128*, 
129,  130,  173. 

Sotinos,  124*,  126,  173. 


Talthybios,  78*. 

Telamon,  95. 

Teles,  12*,  17,  32,  39,  171. 

Theokydes,  67. 

Theseus,  15*,  16,  17,  19*,  38,  43,  45,  53 
74,  78,  79,  80,  84,  85,  126,  132*,  133 
139,  162,  163*,  166,  167. 

Thetis,  86*,  13 1,  166. 

Thorykion,  14*,  17,  32,  53,  74,  91,  171. 
Timagora,  21. 

Tityos,  123,  124,  125,  167. 

Tlenpolemos,  115*,  117,  173. 

Tleson  (potter),  29. 

Tranion,  69*,  172. 

Tydeus,  59. 


Xanthippe,  149*,  150,  152. 
Xeno(kles  ?),  129*,  130,  173. 
Xerxes,  67. 


INDEX  OF  PUBLICATIONS 


Only  those  works  are  given  which  contain  illustrations  of  vases  described  or  cited  in  this  volume. 
The  titles  of  all  such  publications  and  the  references  to  plates  and  pages  in  them  are  printed  in 
italic,  references  to  plates,  figures,  and  pages  in  this  book  in  roman  type.  For  Table  of  Abbrevia- 
tions see  page  xiii. 


American  Journal  of  Archaeology,  i8q5, 
pp.  485  ff;  35- 

Annali  dell’  Instituto,  184^,  pi.  M,  74: 
1870,  pis.  O,  P,  (E  IV)  Pis.  4-5- 
Antike  Denkmdler,  II,  pi.  20,  (P  6)  Pis. 

32-33:  II,  pi.  8,  (HII)  PI.  36. 
Archaeologischer  Anzeiger,  i8q2,  p.  165, 
n.  31,  (E  9)  Eig.  9:  1912,  p.  104,  jigs. 
1-3,  (P  8)  Fig.  30. 

Archaeologische  Zeitung,  1873,  pi.  9, 
(EV)  Fig.  5:  1879,  pi.  4,  (E8)  Pis. 
20-21. 

Athenische  Mittheilungen,  1905,  pi.  15,  76. 

Baumeister,  p.  iii4,fig.  1311,  (E  ii)  PI. 

22;  p.  1900,  fig.  2133,  (E  7)  Pis.  17-19- 
Benndorf,  Griechische  und  Sicilische 
Vasenbilder,  pi.  29,  10,  31. 

Berichte  der  Sdchshchen  Gesellschaft  der 
Wissenschaften,  1833,  pis.  3-6,  (P  I) 
PI.  25. 

British  Museum  Catalogue  III,  pi.  X, 
(E3,2l)  PI.  9. 

Bulle,  Der  schone  Mensch,  pi.  300,  (E 
19)  Fig.  16. 

Buschor,_^g.  106,  (E  I,  PI.  7;  fig.  107, 
(E  III,  detail)  PI.  9;  fig.  108,  (H  II) 
PI-  36;  fig‘  109,  (E  10)  PI.  28. 

Cambridge,  Fitzwilliam  Museum  Cat., 

pl-  32,  145- 

Creuzer,  Archaeologia  III,  pi.  i,  72. 

El.  Ceram.,  II,  pi.  30  (2I),  (P  4)  PI.  31. 
Ephem.  Arch.  1887,  p.  123,  (E  14)  Fig. 
12;  pi.  VI,  (E  19),  Fig.  16;  1883,  pi. 
IX,  10,  (P  VI)  Fig.  21. 


Furtwangler  and  Reichhold,  Vol.  I,  pi. 
14,  (E  I)  PI.  i;  pi.  22,  70;  pi.  32,  (P  I) 
PI.  25;  pi.  33.  (E  III)  PI.  3;  pi  34, 
40;  pi.  32,  (K  2)  PI.  41;  p.  264,  (K  6) 
Fig.  36;  p.  263,  (K  2)  Fig.  35. 
Furtwangler  and  Reichhold,  Vol.  II, 
pis.  63,  35,  70,  106;  71,  (E  10:  P i) 
PI.  28;  72,  (E  ii)  PI.  22;  73.2,  75, 
note  i;  74,  28;  73,  27;  81,  (Eli) 
PI.  2;  52,  (HI)  PI.  35;  97,  (PII) 
PI.  26;  92,  40,  70;  103,  (E  4)  PI.  12; 
772,  (P4)  PI.  31;  p.  70,  figs.  30-32, 
(P  2)  Pis.  24-25;  p.  81,  fig.  44,  (E  12) 
PI.  23;  p.  1 1 4,  fig-  28,  (HII)  PI.  36. 
Furtwangler  and  Reichhold,  Vol.  Ill, 
pi.  133,  38;  pi.  136,  1 16. 

Genick,  Griech.  Keramik,  pi.  23,  i,  (E  7) 
Pis.  17-19,  Fig.  8. 

Gerhard,  Aus.  Vas.,  PI.  22,  (P  4)  PI.  31; 
39-60,  91;  103,  (HI)  PI.  35;  126, 
114,  127;  168,  (E  HI)  PI.  3;  188, 
(E  I)  PI.  I ; 198,  5 2 ; 267,  (E  4)  PI.  12; 
273,  52;  276,  52;  290,  52. 

Gerhard,  Trinkschalen  und  Gefdsse,  pis. 
VI-VII,  71.  3,  (E  14)  Fig.  12. 

Hart  wig,  Meisterschalen,  pi.  i,  35, 
note  2;  3,1,  52,  81;  70,  56;  17,1, 
(PHI)  Fig.  17;  17,2  (PV)  Fig.  20; 

17.3,  (E  13)  Fig.  II ; 75,7,  (E  15) 
Fig.  13;  75,2,  (E  14)  Fig.  12;  75,3, 
84,  note  2;  37,  1-2,  (KI)  Fig.  34; 

37.3,  (K6)  Fig.  36;  pi.  37,  4a-b, 
(K  2)  Fig.  34;  33,  72;  38-39,  72; 
fig.  16,  56;  27-22,  (PI)  PI.  25;  27, 
38;  (K  4)  PI.  42- 


i86 


INDEX  OF  PUBLICATIONS 


Hoppin,  Euthymides,  pi.  /,  II,  (E  II)  PI. 
2;  pi.  Ill,  IV,  (E  i)  PL  7;  V,  VI, 
(E2)  PL  8;  VII,  (E3,A)  PL  9. 

Jahn,  Dichter  auf  Vasenh.,  pi.  V , (E  7) 
Pis.  17-19. 

Jahrbuch,  i8g6,  p.  184,  fig.  26,  (P  7)  PL 
34- 

Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies  i8gi,  pis. 
20-21,  (P  IV)  PL  27,  Fig.  18;  i8gi, 
pis.  22-23,  (P  7)  PL  34;  igo7,  pi.  ig, 
(E3,B)  PL  9;  igio,  pi.  4,  (K  i)  Pis. 
39-40;  igii,  pi.  6,  44;  igi2,  pi.  3,  63; 
igi5,  pis.  5-6,  (E  IV)  Pis.  4-5. 
Jiithner,  Antike  Turngerdthe,  fig.  55, 
(K  2)  PL  41,  Fig.  36. 

Klein,  Euphronios , p.  no,  (shoulder  of 
Pi)  PL  28;  Griech.  V asen  mit  Lieh- 
lingsins.,  p.  41,  figs.  1-2,  39. 

Lange,  Darstellung,  p.  100,  fig.  31,  74. 
Louvre,  Alhim,  pi.  g2,  (E  6)  Pis.  15-16; 
pi.  g2,  (P  3)  Pis.  29-30;  pi.  g3,  57; 
pi.  g3~94,  (K  5)  PI-  43;  Pl-  94,  75, 
note  I. 

Luynes,  Description  etc.,  pi.  44,  (KI)  PI.38. 

Madrid,  Catalogue,  pi.  ii,  39. 

Mon.  Ant.  Line.,  igoy,  p.  278,  fig.  204, 
74,  note  i;  1913,  p.  285,  fig.  4,  (P  9) 

Fig. 

Mon.  d.  Inst.,  I,  pi.  26,3,  (K  2)  PL  41; 
II,  pi.  25,  127;  VI-VII,  pi.  34,  (P  8) 
Fig.  30;  VIII,  pi.  15,1,  (Eli)  PL 
22;  XI,  pis.  27-28,  (P  II)  PL  26. 
Mon.  Piot,  i8g4,  pis.  5-7,  158;  igo2, 
pis.  2-3,  35;  1902,  pis.  11-15,  34, 
note  i;  1913,  pis.  6-8,  34,  note  i. 


Museo  Gregoriano,  II,  pi.  14,  2h,  {20. 
2),  31;  II,  pi.  34,  2a  {58.2),  (K  i) 
Pis.  39-40. 

Mus.  Ital.  Class.  Ill,  pi.  4,  (E  12)  PL  23. 

Oesterr.  Jahreshefte,  1907,  pi.  I,  155. 

Overbeck,  Griechische  Kunstmythologie, 
pi.  23,  4,  (P  4)  PL  31;  pi.  24,  3,  (P  I) 
PL  25;  pl.2s,4,  (PII)  PL  26. 

Panofka,  V asenhildner , pi.  IV,  1-2,  (E  I) 
PL  i;  Eigennam.,  pi.  IV,  4,  (E  14) 
Fig.  12. 

Perrot  and  Chipiez,  x,  fig.  203,  (K  2) 
PL  41;  figs.  260-261,  (E  I)  PL  i;  fig. 
262,  (E  II)  PL  2;  fig.  338,  (E  III)  PL 
3;  fig-  265,  (PHI)  Fig.  17;  fig.  266, 
(P  IV)  PL  27. 

Philologus  XXVI  {1867),  pi.  II,  (P  i) 
PL  28. 

Poliak,  Zwei  Vasen  aus  d.  Werkstatt 
Hieron's,  pi.  4,  29,  note  i. 

Pottier,  Douris,fig.  5,  (P  III)  Fig.  17. 

Rev.  Arch.  1915,  p.  12,  fig.  6,  33. 

Romische  Mittheilungen,  igo8,  p.  332, 
figs.  2-5,  13,  note  I. 

Roulez,  Vases  de  Leyde,  pi.  13,  (E  5) 
Pis.  13-14. 

Schdne,  Mus.  Bocchi,  pi.  IV,  2,  (E  VI) 
Fig.  5- 

I 

Vergers,  Noel  des,  Etrurie,  III,  pi.  g,  37. 

Wiener  Vorlegehlatter,  I,  pi.  I,  (E  ii) 
PL  22;  D,  pis.  1-2,  59. 


ft 


•T»)  ‘ y<  ■. 

■:  %;:  ; • 

-*4  *>  ' _ 


A 


b-.'.-S'ii 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


